Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12648 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pinky Verma Respondent :- The Chief General Manager, Canara Bank, Ho Bengaluru And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office, Lucknow, whereby the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that her name was not mentioned in the record of deceased employee as being dependent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the said order is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as, the Dying-in- Harness appointment in the bank concerned are governed by the scheme framed by the bank which was promulgated on 20.3.2015.
The said scheme clearly defines "dependent family member of the employee" which includes "wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee". The rule further provides the post against which appointment can be made, exemption and relaxation which can be granted and the time limit for considering application. The rule nowhere puts any embargo on consideration of claim of a person who is not mentioned as dependent in the service record of the deceased employee. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner's brother was unmarried and being unmarried sister, the petitioner falls within the meaning of "family member" as in Clause 3.1.4 of the scheme for compassionate appointment.
Only enquiry which could have been made by the respondents was to ascertain the factor of dependency of the petitioner over her deceased brother. This has probably not been done while passing the order impugned.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of dependency has also been ascertained at the level of the bank while processing the claim of the petitioner before passing the order impugned.
Be that as it may, having gone through the scheme of compassionate appointment, the reason given for rejection of claim of the petitioner in the order dated 13.11.2017 cannot be accepted. The rejection order is hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent bank for fresh consideration in the light of the scheme of compassionate appointment framed by the bank itself.
An expeditious decision be taken by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, under due intimation to the petitioner.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Brijesh