JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Present petition has been filed for the relief of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to offer compassionate appointment under dying in harness rules.
2. In the instant petition, the broad facts are that Balbir Singh Chauhan, an employee of Punjab National Bank suffered massive heart attack and departed for heavenly abode on September 19, 1986. Subsequently, one of the surviving son namely Anil Kumar Singh Chauhan sought compassionate appointment. While he was slugging for compassionate appointment, he too died on August 26, 1998. Thereafter the petitioner one of the surviving daughter of the deceased after attaining majority applied for compassionate appointment on prescribed proforma vide application dated January 28, 2002.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied heavily on the assurances contained in the letter of the Regional Manager dated November 27, 1986 (Annexure-1 to the petition) the text of which is that as soon as the son of the deceased Balbir Singh attains majority, the application for compassionate appointment be preferred forthwith to enable the Bank to consider compassionate appointment. It would transpire from the record that Anil Kumar Singh after attaining majority, applied for compassionate appointment and when the request remained unacted upon, he preferred claim before the Labour Tribunal. Unfortunately for him, before the claim could mature into decision, Anil Kumar Singh aforesaid was spirited away by death. In the wake of death of Anil Kumar Singh, the present petitioner applied for compassionate appointment which is still mired in indecision and tired of inaction on the part of authorities, the present petition has been preferred. It is manifestly clear that the scheme in vogue relied upon by the Bank came into being in the year 1994 and there appears to be substance in the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the bar of four years cannot be enforced for application in the instant case particularly having regard to the fact that assurance of the Regional Manager to proffer appointment after the son of deceased had attained majority had generated reasonable expectation in the mind of the surviving members of the deceased and now the Bank authorities are estopped from repudiating the claim of the petitioner. The Learned counsel also canvassed that there was no bar operating earlier and compassionate appointments prior to 1994 were considered and proffered liberally and in the circumstances, the new rules brought to bear for application in the Bank cannot be rigidly applied with retrospectivity to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Besides the above the learned counsel also pressed into service the penurious condition of the surviving family of the deceased and enumerated details of straitened circumstances. The learned counsel for the respondents, in opposition, contended that the deceased employee succumbed to massive heart attack as far back as in the year 1986 and the first application for compassionate appointment was preferred by the surviving son in the year 1996. He too died in the year 1998. In this conspectus, the compassionate appointment cannot be stretched to be used as a nostrum for universal application even after a lapse of 17 years as the scheme in vogue prescribes four years' period for such application.
4. In the galaxy of the above facts, it is more than obvious that the Bank authorities had assured the surviving members of the family to proffer compassionate appointment after the son of the deceased employee had attained majority and this factum has not been repudiated by the learned counsel representing the Bank. Besides there appears to be considerable substance in the submission that the relevant rule came into force in the year 1994 and thus the bar of four years cannot be called in aid for application in the instant case. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, I forbear from expressing any opinion on merit and feel called to relegate the matter to the Bank authorities to reconsider the matter particularly having regard to the assurances as contained in Annexure-1 to the petition and pass appropriate orders assigning reasons for conclusions so reached.
5. In the light of the above observation, the matter is relegated to the authority concerned in the fond hope that the penurious condition of the deceased family would receive benign consideration of the authority concerned. The petitioner may prefer representation alongwith a copy of this order to the appropriate authority who shall consider and decide the matter expeditiously by a speaking order preferably within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the application in the prescribed form. The petition is accordingly disposed of subject to the above observations.