High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Prashant Kumar v. Aligarh Gramin Bank, Aligarh And Another - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1435 of 2003  RD-AH 5619 (29 March 2007)
Special Appeal No.1435 of 2003
Prashant Kumar vs. Aligarh Gramin Bank & another.
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
This is an intra court appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2003 dismissing the appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3379 of 2003 claiming compassionate appointment.
Heard Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Miss. Roma Hamid, Advocate.
The short facts relevant for the purpose of this case are that the father of the appellant, who was working as clerk-cum-cashier in Aligarh Gramin Bank, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), died in harness on 9.6.1998. The mother of the appellant, being widow of the deceased, made an application for giving her compassionate appointment under the scheme framed by the Bank known as ''Scheme for Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Employee'. Under the provisions of the said Scheme, she was required to produce birth certificate and a certificate of class VIII examination for consideration of her application. In spite of being asked to produce such certificate she failed to file the same, therefore, her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. The appellant, son of the deceased, after attaining majority again made application claiming compassionate appointment on 5.6.2002. The respondent-Bank considered the application filed by the appellant and vide letter dated 10.8.2002 rejected his claim on the ground that the application for appointment was not made within the period prescribed under the scheme and further that the application claiming compassionate appointment moved by his mother has already been rejected earlier. The Hon'ble Single Judge finding that the claim of the appellant was rightly rejected by the Bank on the aforesaid two grounds, dismissed the writ petition. Hon'ble Single Judge has also recorded the finding that on the death of the father of the appellant his mother received Rs.5 lacs under Master JPA Policy, Rs.22,748/- as gratuity, Rs.5,105/- as balance salary, Rs.67,321/- as GIES and Rs.36,500/- as Group Insurance and besides that the family was also receiving monthly pension of Rs.2,500/- and thus, came to the conclusion that there was no immediate hardship being faced by the family of the appellant and to mitigate such financial crisis, he should have been given compassionate appointment. Further, law is well settled in this regard by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the purpose for giving compassionate appointment is to mitigate immediate financial crisis of the family on account of death of sole bread earner so that the family may not suffer. Reference may be made to the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (10) SC 156. In the case in hand, the mother of the appellant made an application for being appointed on compassionate ground, which was rejected for want of necessary certificates. Thus, the right offered by the scheme to the dependant of the deceased employee dying in harness was already exercised by the mother and thus, stood consumed and thereafter the appellant, son of the deceased employee, has no right to claim or move application seeking fresh consideration for his appointment. The scheme under which the compassionate appointment has been sought does not permit successive applications to be made by the dependant of the deceased one after the other. Further the fact that mother of the appellant, who applied for compassionate appointment, failed to produce the certificates required for considering her candidature goes to show that she was never serious about it, which in itself is sufficient to demonstrate that there was no such crisis being faced by the family. Apart from the aforesaid, it is clear that the family of the deceased employee has survived from 1998 till date without any financial crisis. In this view of the matter also, the appellant is not entitled for compassionate appointment giving a go - by to the normal rule of appointment. In view of the above, we do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge.
The special appeal, being without merit, is hereby dismissed summarily.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.