JUDGMENT V.C. Misra, J.
1. Sri O.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents-Bank are present. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case. On the joint request of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 16.7.2001 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) declining the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India' and for a direction commanding the respondents-Bank to give appointment to the petitioner in the Bank on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband who died on 25.1.2000 while working as Assistant in the Karhall Branch of State Bank of India, Agra.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the husband of the petitioner Deepak Kumar Jain who was working as Assistant in the Karhall Branch, State Bank of India, Agra expired on 25.1.2000 leaving behind him the petitioner and three daughters aged about 8 years, 6 years and 3 years respectively and his old parents. Neither any moveable or immoveable property nor cash balance or jewellery was left behind by him and there was no other source of income except of family pension which was insufficient to maintain his family. His widow-the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the Bank on account of death of her husband, which was rejected by respondent No. 3 Chief General Manager (Personnel and HRD) vide letter dated 21st May, 2001 without providing any opportunity of hearing to her. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Chairman, State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai on 7th March, 2001 averring therein all the facts and also that the petitioner and her family should not be penalized on account of earlier acts of her late husband, whatsoever. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the Chairman, State Bank of India and dismissal order was communicated to her vide its letter dated 16.7.2001. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed this writ petition.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents Bank it has been stated that Sri O.K. Jain husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension by the competent authority w.e.f. 30.5.1995 and was served with a charge sheet dated 6.9.1995 for having committed gross misconduct, inter alia that on 23.1.1995 he accepted a deposit of Rs. 200/- each from two customers and issued counter foils but the amount was credited to their respective accounts on the next date i.e. 24.1.1995; that on 2.2.1995 he submitted a false T.A. Bill for Rs. 109/-in connection with his visit to Tundla Branch on 27.1.1995 to attend an inquiry which he did not attend; that on 20.3.1995 he purchased a Cheque for Rs. 300/- from Seo Ka Bazar (Agra) Branch without keeping sufficient balance in his Account. All the said charges levelled against him were found to be proved and thus the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reducing his basic pay by two stages and stopping of five annual future increments with cumulative effect of postponing his further increments. In the counter affidavit it has been further stated that the Bank had introduced the scheme of compassionate appointments in the year 1979, which was amended from time to time. The applicable scheme at relevant time for compassionate appointment updated up to 1.1.1998, inter alia, provides that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the bereaved family on sudden crisis clue to death of the bread earner but to offer compassionate appointment was subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority of the respondents-Bank. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that in the present case the compassionate appointment of the petitioner a dependant of the deceased employee was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Scheme provided for the said purpose and that there did not exist any vested right in the petitioner and, therefore, she was not entitled to any benefit.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the apex Court as well as of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India and Ors. ; Mritunjay Mishra v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and Ors. (2005) 1 UPLBEC 978; Ajay Kumar Shevdy v. The Chief Security Commissioner and Ors. (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1503; and in Chief General Manager. State Bank of India and Ors. v. Durgesh Kumar Tiwari (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2244. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the death of her deceased husband, who was an employee of the respondents - Bank the earlier Scheme was fully applicable to the petitioner's case, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the Supplementary Affidavit.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents-Bank has submitted that the earlier scheme for compassionate appointment was withdrawn and was substituted by another scheme from the date of its enforcement which is not applicable in the present case. However he has admitted that the earlier scheme was applicable in the present case. A copy of the said scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds for dependants of deceased employees/employees retired on medical grounds has been filed by the respondents- Bank as Annexure No. 2 to the counter affidavit. Learned Counsel for the respondents- Bank has submitted that Clause 6(d) of the Scheme as updated up to 1.1.1998 provided that prior Government concurrence was mandatory for considering the cases where disciplinary action had been taken against the employee or disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated against him but later on the matter was reconsidered by the government and it was decided that such proposal may be considered by the Boards of the Bank in terms of the Government guide lines and the matter should not be referred to the Government in future. Learned Counsel for the respondents-Bank submitted that accordingly in pursuance to the Government decision the Executive of the Central Board of the Bank approved the revised authority structure to deal with the cases provided for in the amended scheme of May, 2002 in which as per Clause 11(A)(a) thereafter the Managing Director & Group Executive (National Bank Group) shall be competent authority for approving such proposal for compassionate appointment in cases where a penalty for minor misconduct was inflicted on the deceased employee. It has been further submitted that as per Clause 11(D) of the scheme, the Executive of the Central Board would be competent authority to give prior sanction for appointment under the Scheme if penalty for gross misconduct was inflicted.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and looked in to the record of the case as well as the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and 1 find that at the time when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the death of her deceased husband, the earlier Scheme was applicable to the petitioner's case and the amended Scheme came into force from May, 2002. I am of the view that the inapplicable provisions of the clauses of the amended Scheme could not be taken resort to by the respondents as a ground to deprive/scuttle the rightful benefits that accrue to the petitioner only due to some charges of misconduct of the deceased husband of the petitioner for which he had already been penalized. No past acts of misconduct of the employee who dies in harness can be taken into account while considering the case of a family member for employment on compassionate ground, as it is not a benefit provided to the deceased employee but for providing immediate succor to its dependants to survive. The decision of the respondents is impermissible in the eye of law being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.5.2001 and 16.7.2001 (Annexures No. 2 and 4 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. Accordingly the respondents-Bank is directed to provide an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on account of the death of her husband, in accordance with law and in terms of the earlier Scheme, which was inforce at that time within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the concerned authority-respondent Bank. There will be no order as to costs.