Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
( By Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Satish Chaturvedi & Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank and perused the record.
The appellant has filed this intra court appeal challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.2014 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17357 of 2004, Smt. Usha Rai versus State of U.p. and others whereby the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed.
Brief facts giving rise to the instant special appeal are that husband of the appellant was employed in the respondents-bank. He died in harness on 16.6.2001. The widow moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules before the authority concerned of the Bank, which was turned down by the authority after taking into account the financial position of the appellant. Aggrieved, she filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17357 of 2004, Smt. Usha Rani versus State Bank of India and others, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.9.2014, hence the instant special appeal.
The impugned judgment and order of the Writ Court is assailed on the ground that the Writ Court has not considered the policy of the respondent-bank regarding the grant of compassionate appointment i.e. the size of the family and the liability, if any, also one of the issues which had to be considered while finalizing the matter for grant of compassionate appointment to the appellant, which has not at all been considered by the respondent-bank; that the Writ Court had also not considered the fact that the appellant who is widow having no source of income and is having liability for marrying two daughters and one son which she is unable to fulfill due to her weak economical condition.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the observation of the Writ Court that after passing of a considerable period the family of the deceased employee has overcome the immediate economic problem is not correct as there were one marriageable daughter, two minor daughters and one minor son along with the widow herself at the time of sad demise of the employee and the case law relied upon by the Writ Court rendered in State Bank of India and another versus Raj Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC (L & S)-150 is not at all applicable in the present case.
In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions rendered in Govind Prakash Verma versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2005) 10 SCC-289 & Jagdish Narain versus Union of India and others, (2011) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2196 wherein it has been held that only on the basis of the payment of the settlement dues as well as payment of family pension to the widow of the deceased employee is not sufficient and proper without considering the overall liability upon the widow.
For ready reference, the relevant portion of the impugned judgment and order of the Writ Court is quoted below.
"This petition was filed in the year 2004 by the petitioner, who has not pursued the petition for the last ten years. The petitioner has coped with the situation, the crisis, if any, in the family is obviously over. The purpose of giving compassionate appointment at the time of death of the bread earner is to provide immediate relief to the family. This family has obviously survived for the last ten years.� It is settled view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Another vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 150 that the purpose of granting such appointment is to provide succor to the family at the time of need and not to create a new mode of back door entry.
The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Bank. The Bank has rightly taken a view that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis, which the family may face at the time of death of sole bread earner. The courts can only interfere where the employer fails to consider at least the request at a time when it is raised. It is not open to the Court while administering justice to be impelled by sympathetic considerations to grant compassionate appointment, it is not a vested right.
In this case the Court is of the opinion that adequate time has passed to enable the family to get back to its feet and the authority concerned has also considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and has come to the conclusion that the family could survive on its own. No case is made out for granting any relief at this stage.
This Writ Petition has no merit, it is dismissed."
From perusal of the aforesaid finding of the Writ Court and the record it appears that the husband of the appellant was an employee of the bank, who died in harness on 16.6.2001. She moved an application for compassionate appointment on class IV post under the Dying in Harness Rules, which was rejected by the Bank. Thereafter, she preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17357 of 2004, Smt. Usha Rai versus State Bank of India and another, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.9.2014. The Writ Court has held that the appellant has not pursued the petition for the last ten years and the family has survived all these years. The purpose of giving compassionate appointment at the time of death of the bread earner is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises.
Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such resource of livelihood. The Apex Court has also held that the purpose of granting such appointment is to provide succor to the family at the time of need and not to create a new mode of back door entry. Appointment by way of compassionate appointment is an exception carved out of the general rule for appointment on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. The exception was to be resorted to in cases of penury where the dependents of an employee are left without any means of livelihood and that unless some source of livelihood was provided a family would not be able to make both ends meet.
It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course irrespective of the financial status of the family of the deceased at the time of his death. Where a family has been provided with sufficient funds and a running income it cannot be said that the family is suffering any such hardship to give compassionate appointment to one of the members of the family. Today the country is facing large-scale unemployment. There are lacs of persons awaiting opportunity of employment. In order to provide social justice to the millions of unemployed and educated young men and women, it is necessary that the employment should be given to eligible and deserving persons. The family of the deceased-employee was not found in indigent circumstances and has survived more than 13 years.
The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are clearly distinguishable.
In our considered opinion, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment as it is not shown to us that the family of the deceased is still living in indigent circumstances. The order of the trial Court, therefore, does not require any interference by this Court.
For the reasons stated above, the special appeal is dismissed.
Dated 7.11.2014 CPP/-