JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Sheshavatar Mishra, learned Counsels for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. None appears for respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's father Late Bhopal Singh was working as Guard in the State Bank of India, Binauli Branch, District Baghpat and he died on 15.9.1996. Since at that time the age of the petitioner was only less than 13 years and his date of birth being 21.11.1993, his mother submitted an application within a period of 2 months from the date of death of deceased Bhopal Singh, whereupon the Bank Officials assured that whenever the minor will become major, he will be provided compassionate appointment. The petitioner submits that he attained majority in 2001 and thereafter submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 20.11.2001 but the same has been rejected by respondents No. 2 and 3 stating that Compassionate Appointment Rules applicable to the Bank are permissible only within one year from the date of death of the employee.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner was minor yet an application was submitted in the year 1996 and, therefore, the same ought to have been treated a valid application within time and a vacancy should have been kept for him so that after attaining majority he should have got appointment under the Provisions of the aforesaid Rules.
4. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1994 (68) FLR 1191 (SC), it was held that a Rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications on merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is no another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid recruitment taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.
5. Again in Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. , the Apex Court observed as under:
The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earned - which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both the ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure. It is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision. Care has, therefore to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee.
6. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. , the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment is provided only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left family in penury without any means of livelihood but it cannot be treated to be a reserved vacancy for the dependents of the deceased Government servant who died in harness.
7. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi 2002 LLJ 773, the Apex Court while reiterating the objective of compassionate appointment as laid down in the earlier cases further observed that the application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated.
8. Recently in the case of Commissioner public instructions and Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath 2005 (107) FLR 153, the Apex Court has observed as under:
The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit.
9. This court has also taken a similar view in another matter, decided toady i.e. Writ petition No. 74086 of 2005 Ramesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.
10. In these circumstances, since the petitioner has submitted an application for compassionate appointment after one year of the death of the deceased employee and under the provisions applicable in the Bank, the application could have been considered within one year of the death, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment as per the Rules of the Bank.
11. Accordingly the Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.