# Avesh v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 82
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1558 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avesh-v-u-p-awas-evam-vikas-parishad-lko-ors-54598
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad
(Conditions
of
Service)
Regulations,
1996
-
Reg.
27(10)
-
Disciplinary proceeding - Enquiry was
concluded - On being disagreement with
the
finding
of
enquiry
report,
the
Disciplinary Authority directed for denovo
enquiry - Permissibility - Held, Regulation
27 (10) (i) (a) of the Regulations, 1966
clearly mandates that the Disciplinary
Authority may issue show cause notice on
disagreement if he disagrees from the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and may
pass any appropriate punishment order as
he deems fit and proper considering the
allegations
and
reply of
the
charge
employee but denovo enquiry has not
been mandated - High Court quashed the
punishment
order
directing
the
respondent to reinSt. the petition in
service and pay the salary. (Para 15 and
18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with the guidelines prescribed
by the UGC, from time to time."
(Emphasis supplied)

40. From the bare perusal of the
aforesaid provision, it is clear that even though
no exhaustive procedure is given under
Regulations, 2018. It does provide that subject
to the availability of vacant positions and
fitness, teachers may be re-employed on
contract appointment beyond the age of
superannuation, as applicable to the concerned
University, college and Institution, upto the age
of seventy years and all such re-employment
shall be strictly in accordance with the
guidelines prescribed by the UGC, from
time to time.

41. We find that learned Single Judge
failed to distinguish the Guidelines, 2008,
which have provided exhaustive procedure for
re-employment of superannuated teachers,
whereas Regulations, 2018 has been issued in
different context. Nowhere learned Single
Judge has dealt with the matter that in absence
of any detailed guidelines, which method is to
be adopted and by which mode/ method the
superannuated teachers could be re-employed.
Once the BHU has come up with a categorical
stand that still the Model Guidelines, 2008
holds the field, we have no hesitation to hold
that Regulations, 2018 deals with entirely
different situation. The petitioner-opposite party
had not placed any guidelines issued by UGC,
which
deals
with
re-employment
of
superannuated teachers. In such situation, the
reasoning and observations made in this regard
by learned Single Judge in para 45 of the
impugned judgment cannot sustain.

42. This can be viewed from another
aspect that in case Model Guidelines, 2008
framed by UGC goes, then there would remain
no other detailed provisions in this regard. Once
BHU has come with categorical stand that reemployment is accorded in the light of the
Guidelines, 2008, we have no hesitation to say
that the reasons assigned by learned Single
Judge in para 45 of the impugned judgment that
in case there is conflict between Regulations
and Guidelines framed thereunder, definitely
Regulations would prevail, would not sustain.
Under the facts and circumstances, as
Guidelines, 2008 and Regulations, 2018 are
distinct and deal with different situations, there
is infact no conflict between the two.

CONCLUSION

43. Considering both the issues as
answered above, we find that even otherwise in
view of direction issued by learned Single
Judge in Para 46 (I), wherein he had directed for
constitution
of
Screening-cum-Evaluation
Committee, in case the Committee extends
benefit to the petitioner-opposite party under the
CAS as Professor, it is always open for him to
press an application for re-employment on a
contract basis, if any vacancy is available in the
Department.

44. In view of above, the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 stands
modified. The special appeal stands partly
allowed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 82
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 1558 of 2025

Avesh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner:
4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
83
Apoorva Tewari, Ajeet Singh, Girdhari Lal
Yadav, Vivek Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Rama Pati Shukla

A. Service Law - UP Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad
(Conditions
of
Service)
Regulations,
1996
-
Reg.
27(10)
-
Disciplinary proceeding - Enquiry was
concluded - On being disagreement with
the
finding
of
enquiry
report,
the
Disciplinary Authority directed for denovo
enquiry - Permissibility - Held, Regulation
27 (10) (i) (a) of the Regulations, 1966
clearly mandates that the Disciplinary
Authority may issue show cause notice on
disagreement if he disagrees from the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and may
pass any appropriate punishment order as
he deems fit and proper considering the
allegations
and
reply of
the
charge
employee but denovo enquiry has not
been mandated - High Court quashed the
punishment
order
directing
the
respondent to reinSt. the petition in
service and pay the salary. (Para 15 and
18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

1. K.R. Deb Vs The Collector of Central Excise,
Shillong; 1971 (2) SCC 102

2. Kanailal Bera Vs U.O.I.& ors.; (2007) 11 SCC
517

3. U.O.I.& ors. Vs P. Thayagarajan; 1998 SUPP
3 SCR 114

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rama Pati Shukla (R.P. Shukla), learned
counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel
for the opposite parties has filed counter
affidavit, the same is taken on record and
the rejoinder affidavit thereof has already
been filed, which is on record.

3. By means of this writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-

 "(a) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
21.01.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2
as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition;

(b) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash the impugned office order dated
22.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2,
after summoning the original from the
respondents;

(c) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondent No.2 to
reinstate the petitioner in service and to
pay full salary to the petitioner for the
period the petitioner remained under
suspension."

4. So far as the Prayer No.(b) of the
writ petition is concerned, Sri R.P. Shukla
has informed, on the basis of instructions,
that by means of order dated 22.02.2024
only this much has been directed that in the
present matter setting aside the first enquiry
report, the denovo enquiry be conducted
against the petitioner considering the
representation of the complainant dated
09.01.2024, which has been filed as
Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit.
Though copy of order dated 22.02.2024 has
not been enclosed with the counter
affidavit.
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. This Court on the first date of
admission i.e. 06.02.2025 passed the
following order:-

"Heard.

Under challenge is the order
dated 21.01.2025, a copy of which is
annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the
petitioner has been placed suspension. Also
under challenge is the office order dated
22.02.2024.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the
facts are that the petitioner claims to be
working on the post of Executive Engineer.
A complaint was submitted by a lady
against the petitioner. In pursuance to the
said complaint, the matter was referred to
the committee as has been constituted in
terms of the Sexual Harassment of. Women
at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred
to
as
"Act,
2013").
The
committee
submitted its report dated 16.05.2023, a
copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ
petition whereby the allegations were not
proved against the petitioner.

Subsequently, with the change in
the committee, another report dated
30.08.2023, a copy of which is annexure 8
to the writ petition was submitted whereby
the charges sheet have been found to be
proved.

Subsequent thereto, the petitioner
was issued with a charge sheet dated
12.10.2023, a copy of which is annexure 9
to the writ petition. An inquiry report dated
23.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 11
to the writ petition was submitted whereby
the charges were not found proved against
the petitioner.

Subsequently, vide order dated
30.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure 12
to the writ petition, upon a complaint being
submitted by the complainant/lady, a denovo inquiry was directed. As per the
averments made in paragraphh 21 of the
writ petition, the inquiry report was
submitted in which again the petitioner has
been exonerated. It is also contended that
by means of the order dated 22.02.2024,
the first inquiry report had been set aside
and a fresh inquiry had been directed.

Now, by means of the order
impugned dated 21.01.2025, upon a
complaint
being
submitted
by
the
complainant levelling various allegations
against the petitioner in pursuance to the
earlier
complaint
submitted
by
the
complainant, the petitioner has been placed
under suspension and the inquiry officer
has been required to submit a fresh inquiry
report after inquiring into the charges.

Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the service rules with
which the petitioner is governed namely
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
(Condition of Service) Regulations, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as "Regulations,
1966) contains the complete procedure as
prescribed
under
Rule
27
of
the
Regulations, 1966 which does not empower
the disciplinary authority to direct for a
fresh inquiry.

Reliance has also been placed on
the Constitution Bench judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of K.R.. Deb Vs.
Collector of Excise- (1971) 2 SCC 102 to
contend that the Apex Court has held that
the
disciplinary
authority
cannot
be
permitted to hold one inquiry after the
other till the charges are found proved
against a delinquent employee.

Sri
Sampurna
Nand
Shukla,
learned counsel for the respondents prays
for and is granted a week's time to seek
instructions in the matter and to indicate
under which provisions of law more
particularly considering the Regulations,
1966,
has
the
disciplinary
authority
directed for a fresh inquiry into the
4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
85
allegations
as
levelled
against
the
petitioner.
 List thereafter as fresh."

6. In the aforesaid order, the
specific legal query of the Court was that as
to whether there is any provision of law
authorizing the Disciplinary Authority to
direct a fresh denovo enquiry into the
allegations wherein the enquiry has already
been concluded.

7. In the counter affidavit, no such
provision has been quoted or shown as
neither any material nor any provision of
law has been shown or enclosed to that
effect.

8. Sri Apoorva Tewari has drawn
attention of this Court towards Annexure
No.2 of the writ petition, which is the U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Conditions of
Service) Regulations, 1996 (here-in-after
referred to as the "Regulations, 1966").
Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1966
provided the procedure for imposing major
penalty. Perusal thereof reveals that the
Regulation 27 is a complete code in respect
of the procedure for imposing major
penalty. The relevant regulation for the
present controversy would be Regulation
27 (10), which reads as under:-

"27 (10) (i) If the disciplinary
authority, having regard to its findings on
the charges is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in clauses (e) to (g) of
regulation 25 should be imposed it shall-

(a) furnish to the officer or
servant a copy of the report of the inquiring
authority and where the disciplinary
authority is not the inquiring authority a
statement of the findings together with brief
reasons for disagreement, if any, with the
findings of the inquiring authority; and

(b) give him a notice stating the
action proposed to be taken in regard to
him and calling upon him to submit within
a specified time such representation as he
may wish to make against the proposed
action.

(ii) The disciplinary authority
shall consider the representation, if any
made by the officer or servant in response
to the notice under clause (i) and determine
what penalty, if any, should be imposed on
the officer or servant and pass appropriate
orders in the case."

9. The Regulation 27 (10) (i) (a) of
the
Regulations,
1996
categorically
provides that in case of disagreement on the
findings
of
the
enquiry
report,
the
Disciplinary Authority may issue a show
cause notice on such disagreement seeking
explanation from the charge employee but
this
provision
does
not
permit
the
Disciplinary Authority to direct for denovo
enquiry.

10. In the present case, even if the
representation of the complainant dated
09.01.2024 is considered as a reason to
direct for denovo enquiry, which should
have not been directed after completion of
the enquiry as the enquiry concluded on
23.01.2024. The Disciplinary Authority
could have asked the Inquiry Officer to
consider
such
representation
dated
09.01.2024 of the complainant while
concluding the enquiry proceedings but
after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings
on 23.01.2024 issuing direction for denovo
enquiry along with suspension order dated
21.01.2025 is not permissible under law.
The aforesaid submission of Sri Apoorva
Tewari finds strength in view of the dictum
of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court
rendered in the case in re: K.R. Deb vs. The
Collector of Central Excise, Shillong
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reported in 1971 (2) SCC 102. Paras-11, 12
& 13 thereof have been referred by Sri
Tewari, which read as under:-

 "11.
Rule
15(1)
of
the
Classification and Control Rules reads as
follows:

"(1) Without prejudice to the
provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiry)
Act, 1950, no order imposing on a
government servant any of the penalties
specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 13,
shall be passed except after an inquiry,
held as far as may be, in the manner
hereinafter provided."

Clause (2) of Rule 15 provides for
framing of charges and communication in
writing to the government servant of these
charges with the statement of allegations
on which they are based, and it also
provides for a written statement of defence.
Under clause (3) the government servant is
entitled to inspect and take extracts from
such official records as he may specify,
subject to certain exceptions. Under clause
(4) on receipt of the written statement of
defence the Disciplinary Authority may
itself enquire into such of the charges as
are not admitted, or if it considers it
necessary so to do, appoint a Board of
Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the
purpose. Clause (7) provides that at the
conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring
Authority shall prepare a report of the
inquiry, recording its findings on each of
the charges together with reasons therefor.
If in the opinion of such authority the
proceedings
of
the
inquiry
establish
charges different from those originally
framed it may record findings on such
charges provided that findings on such
charges shall not be recorded unless the
government servant has admitted the facts
constituting
them
or
has
had
an
opportunity of defending himself against
them. Under clause (9) "the Disciplinary
Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring
Authority, consider the record of the
inquiry and record its findings on each
charge." Clause (10) provides for issue of
show-cause notice.

12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on
the face of it, really provides for one
inquiry but it may be possible if in a
particular case there has been no proper
enquiry because some serious defect has
crept into the inquiry or some important
witnesses were not available at the time of
the inquiry or were not examined for some
other reason, the Disciplinary Authority
may ask the Inquiry Officer to record
further evidence. But there is no provision
in Rule 15 for completely setting aside
previous inquiries on the ground that the
report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers
does not appeal to the Disciplinary
Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has
enough powers to reconsider the evidence
itself and come to its own conclusion under
Rule 9.

13. In our view the rules do not
contemplate an action such as was taken by
the Collector on February 13, 1962. It
seems to us that the Collector, instead of
taking
responsibility
himself,
was
determined to get some officer to report
against the appellant. The procedure
adopted was not only not warranted by the
rules but was harassing to the appellant."

11. In para-12 of the aforesaid
judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court has held that if the findings of
the Enquiry Officer are not appropriate, the
Disciplinary Authority may ask the Enquiry
Officer to record further evidence but
denovo enquiry may not be directed.

12. The aforesaid judgment in re:
K.R. Deb (supra) has been considered and
4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
87
followed by the Apex Court in the
subsequent judgment in re: Kanailal Bera
vs. Union of India and others reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 517. The relevant para-6
thereof reads as under:-

"6. The question as to whether a
punishment of confinement to Civil Lines
could have been directed or not should not
detain us as we agree with the contention
raised by learned counsel for the appellant
that the purported order dated 5.4.1995 of
the
disciplinary
authority
was
unsustainable in law. Rule 27 of the
Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955 ,
inter alia, lays down the procedure for
conducting a departmental inquiry. Once a
disciplinary proceeding has been initiated,
the same must be brought to its logical end
meaning thereby a finding is required to be
arrived at as to whether the delinquent
officer is guilty of charges levelled against
him or not. In a given situation further
evidences may be directed to be adduced
but the same would not mean that despite
holding a delinquent officer to be partially
guilty of the charges levelled against him
another inquiry would be directed to be
initiated on the self same charges which
could not be proved in the first inquiry."

13. Per contra, Sri R.P. Shukla,
learned counsel for the opposite parties has
placed reliance of the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in re: Union of India and
others vs. P. Thayagarajan reported in
1998 SUPP 3 SCR 114, wherein para-12 of
the judgment in re: K.R. Deb (supra) has
been referred and the Apex Court has held
that the Disciplinary Authority may direct
for denovo enquiry if he is satisfied that the
Enquiry Office has not conducted enquiry
strictly in accordance with law. The
relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:-

"A careful reading of this passage
will make it clear that this court notices
that if in a particular case where there has
been no proper enquiry because of some
serious defect having crept into the inquiry
or some important witnesses were not
available at the time of the inquiry or were
not examined, the Disclpinary Authority
may ask the Inquiry Officer to record
further evidence but that provision would
not enable the Disciplinary Authority to set
aside the previous enquiries on the ground
that the report of the Enquiry Officer does
not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. In
the present case the basis upon which the
Disciplinary Authority set aside the enquiry
is that the procedure adopted by the
Enquiry Officer was contrary to the
relevant rules and affects the rights of the
parties and not that the report does not
appeal to him. When important evidence,
either to be relied upon by the department
or by the delinquent official, is shut out,
this would not result in any advancement of
any justice but on the other hand resuit in a
miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of
the view that Rule 27(c) enables the
Disciplinary
Authority to
record
his
findings on the report and to pass an
appropriate order including ordering a de
novo enquiry in a case of present nature."

14. Therefore, Sri Shukla has
stated, on the basis of aforesaid judgment,
that the Disciplinary Authority may direct
for denovo enquiry.

15. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on the record, at the very
outset, I would like to advert the dictum of
Apex Court in re: Union of India and
others
vs.
P.
Thayagarajan
(supra)
wherein the relevant service rules of the
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were under consideration and under Rule
27 (c) of the Rules, 1966, there was a
mandate to the effect that the Disciplinary
Authority may direct for denovo enquiry if
he is not satisfied with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, but in the present case,
there
is
no
such
provision,
rather,
Regulation
27
(10)
(i)
(a)
of
the
Regulations, 1966 clearly mandates that the
Disciplinary Authority may issue show
cause notice on disagreement if he
disagrees from the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and may pass any appropriate
punishment order as he deems fit and
proper considering the allegations and reply
of the charge employee but denovo enquiry
has not been mandated. Therefore, the
judgment in re: Union of India and others
vs. P. Thayagarajan (supra) would not be
applicable in the present case. Besides, the
judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court would have binding effect over
the judgment of the Apex Court having
quoram of two Hon'ble judges, and the
aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment has
been followed by the Apex Court in
subsequent judgment in re: Kanailal Bera
(supra).

16. Therefore, in the present case,
the judgment of the Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court rendered in re: K.R. Deb
(supra) would be applicable.

17. Since there is no provisions of
law authorizing the Disciplinary Authority
to direct for denovo enquiry, therefore, the
impugned
order
dated
21.01.2025
(Annexure No.1) is patently illegal and
uncalled for. Besides, if denovo enquiry
may not be directed in the present case so
placing the petitioner under suspension
pending that denovo enquiry would also be
unwarranted and uncalled for. Though the
order dated 22.02.2024 has not been
produced or filed by the learned counsel for
the opposite parties, but as per submission
of Sri Shukla that by means of the aforesaid
order the decision for conducting denovo
enquiry had been taken by the Disciplinary
Authority, setting aside the first enquiry
report, which is not permissible under law,
therefore, that impugned order dated
22.02.2024 is also liable to be set aside.

18.
Having
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and the case laws so cited, I find
that the impugned order dated 21.01.2025
(Annexure No.1) passed by the opposite
party No.1 and the order dated 22.02.2024
passed by the opposite party No.2 are
hereby set aside/ quashed. The opposite
party No.2 is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service and pay him salary as
and when the same falls due as well as
arrears of salary during the period of
suspension.

19. It is needless to say that the
Disciplinary
Authority
may
pass
appropriate order strictly in accordance
with law and the Regulation 27 of the
Regulations, 1966, if it is so required, in
view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case and the allegations so
considered by him, but such order may pass
with expedition, strictly in accordance with
law.

20. In view of the aforesaid
terms, the writ petition is allowed.

21. No order as to cost.
(C.M. Application (IA) No.04 of
2025)

22. Heard learned counsel for
the applicant on the application for
impleadment.
4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
89
23. The applicant is a complainant,
filed complaint against the petitioner and
while considering the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties such fact has been
considered and the writ petition has been
allowed giving liberty to the Disciplinary
Authority to take appropriate steps strictly
in accordance with law, to be more precise,
under Regulation 27 of the Regulations,
1966, if it is so needed, then there is no
need to allow this application.

24.
Accordingly,
the
instant
application is rejected.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 89
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 1680 of 2025

Chanchal Sonkar ...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman, SBI & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Satish Chaturvedi

Civil Law - Scheme for Compassionate
Appointments or Payment of Ex Gratia
Financial
Relief
to
Dependents
of
Deceased Employees on Compassionate
Grounds, 2022 - Clause 5 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 12, 14 to 16 -
Petitioner's husband, an employee of
respondent
Bank,
passed
away
on
17.11.2022 - His last drawn gross salary
was ₹1,18,800.14 - Claim of petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds,
declined
on
ground
that
compassionate appointment is allowed if
family's monthly income is less than 75%
of deceased employee's last drawn salary
- Clause 5 of said scheme outlines how
monthly family income is assessed to
determine
financial
status
after
employee's
death
-
Impugned
order
records family's income from all sources -
Calculated
income
exceeds
75%
of
deceased employee's last drawn salary,
indicating family was not in financial
distress - Petitioner was rightly found
ineligible for compassionate appointment
under applicable scheme. (Para 2, 3, 21,
25)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Har., 1994 (4)
SCC 138, (Para 2)

2.
Director of
Education
(Secondary)
Vs
Pushpendra Kumar, 1998 (5) SCC 192, (Para 8)

3. Roopam Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ A
No. 15512 of 2019, (Para 16)

4. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & anr. Vs
Somyashree, Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021,
(Para 7)

5. Ipsita Chakrabarti Vs St. of W. B., 2018 (2)
Cal LT 177 (HC)

6. Sri Bijon Mukherjee Vs The St. of W. B. &
ors., 2018 (3) Cal LT 136 (HC), (Para 26)

7. Ankita Saha & anr. Vs The St. of W.B. & ors.,
WPA No. 12287 of 2019 (Calcutta High Court)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the impugned order date
24.07.2023, the competent authority has
rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant
of appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The admitted facts of the case
are these. The husband of the petitioner
was an employee in the respondent Bank.