Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 549 of 2019 Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Yadav Respondent :- The State Bank Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Baranwal,Ajeet Kumar Baranwal Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
There is delay of 20 days in filing the appeal, which has satisfactorily been explained in the affidavit. Shri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank also does not object for condoning the delay.
The delay is condoned.
Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019 is, accordingly, allowed.
The office is directed to give a regular number to the appeal.
By means of this appeal the appellant has come to this Court questioning the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.3.2019 in Writ Petition No. 10017 of 2003, by which the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner's father was an employee of State Bank of India, Gorakhpur who unfortunately died while in service on 30.8.1998. The appellant made an application on 19.2.1999 giving details of his movable and immovable property seeking compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground that the financial condition of the family is not as such that if appointment is not given, it will not be able to sustain themselves, which was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 11578 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated 23.8.2002 directed the Bank to reconsider for compassionate appointment. The Bank thereafter again by an order dated 18.1.2003 rejected the claim of the appellant which was challenged by the appellant by means of Writ Petition No. 10017 of 2003. This Court while considering the claim of the petitioner as well as taking note of various decisions of the Supreme Court and also noticing the fact that at the time of the decision since more than 20 years have passed dismissed the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that the Bank has found that the movable/immovable assets of the family does not qualify him for compassionate appointment.
any error, factual or legal, from the judgment impugned.
That being the case, we are not inclined to interfere. In fact, we are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.
The appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Sunil Kr. Gupta (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)