JUDGMENT M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.
1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.5.2003.
2. We have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the respondent.
3. We find no merit in this appeal.
4. The facts and circumstances have been stated in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we need not repeat the same.
5. Sri Vipin Sinha has submitted that the widow of the deceased was getting family pension of Rs. 3421/- per month which has been reduced to Rs. 1620/- per month from 1.2.2002. In our opinion this is clearly insufficient to support the family.
6. The deceased was a clerk in the Bank and this family pension would clearly not meet the needs of the widow and her family members particularly in these days when prices and cost of living have risen very high.
7. The claim of the respondents in this appeal was rejected by the Bank by order dated 9.4.1999 on the ground that the financial condition of the family appeared to be sound (vide Annexure-CA-1 to the writ petition). While rejecting the case of the writ petitioner hypothetical source of income was taken into consideration but it was not considered that the saving was spent initially for treatment of father of the writ petitioner and the meager retirement benefits on the marriage of the daughter and treatment of the mother.
8. Moreover, we find that the Bank wrongly held that the writ petitioner has five Bighas of land whereas the Bank has itself sought advice of the local Counsel who after perusal of the record found only 1.5 Bighas (.077 hectares) which are not arable as it is adjoining the pond (vide Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ petition).
9. The widow of the deceased has also developed "DYSFUNCTIONAL. UNTERINE BLEEDING WITH ANXIETY NEUROSIS WITH HYPER TENSION", and she has under gone for surgical operation for which loan was taken from the Bank. A certificate of illness is Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
10. In Ram Piyarey v. State Bank of India, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1575, this Court held that the payment of family pension and dues of the deceased cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. We entirely agree with this view.
11. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in State Bank of India v. Ram Piyarey, 2001 (2) ESC 876. That view was again followed by this Court in Smt. Padma Pathak v. Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Writ Petition No. 37817 of 2001, decided on 3.3.2003, reported in (2003) 1 SAC 500.
12. In Ajay Kumar Shevdy v. The Chief Security Commissioner, (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1503, this Court held that if the application for compassionate appointment was filed within time then merely because the applicant was unnecessarily dragged from the pillar to post for getting employment and this cause that delay he should not be denied the appointment. We agree with its view.
13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Smt. Anju Mishra v. General Manager, Kanpur, 2004 (2) ESC 759 : (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201.
14. For the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed.