# Brijesh Kumar v. Union Bank of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 668
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-18
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijesh-kumar-v-union-bank-of-india-ors-43902
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Shri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor

Om Ratan, who was a Class IV employee in Union Bank of India, Kanpur, died in harness on 14.2.1997 during
service. Petitioner, who is the eldest son moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds alongwith No Objection Certificate of his mother and younger brother. When no action was taken by
the authorities of the Bank for quite long time on the said application, the petitioner knocked the door of this
court by filing the instant writ petition.

The application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was considered by the General Manager
(Personnel), who rejected the same.

As regard the discrimination, I find force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Bank
that while the family of the petitioner was receiving pension whereas late Sri Govid Kumar was not a pension
optee and as such his family was not reeving monthly pension. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the
petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of giving compassionate appointment. The justification given
by the Bank for non-consideration of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground
that the other cases relate to non pensionable category appears to be reasonable and sound. The
compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner was rightly denied by the Bank on the ground that there
was no financial hardship being faced by the deceased's family as they had received money, which was
substantial at the relevant time, after the death of petitioner's father and the family was also receiving
monthly pension. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel are of no avail to him.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.10.2002 passed by opposite party no.4 and the writ
petition lacks merit which is hereby dismissed.
5 All. Brijesh Kumar Vs Union Bank of India & Ors.

669
Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265,G.M. (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary;
(2004) 7 SCC 271, Union Bank of India and others vs. M.T. Latheesh,

## Text

668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
37. In view of the above, we allow this petition. Consequently, proceedings of Case Crime No.
765 of 2015 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4/17/18 Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Madiyaun, district Lucknow (Annexure-1), are hereby quashed.

38. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station Madiyaon, District
Lucknow and the concerned Magistrate, through Senior Registrar of this Court.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Writ Petition/(SS) No.- 5266 Of 2002

Brijesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Jitendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor

Om Ratan, who was a Class IV employee in Union Bank of India, Kanpur, died in harness on 14.2.1997 during
service. Petitioner, who is the eldest son moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds alongwith No Objection Certificate of his mother and younger brother. When no action was taken by
the authorities of the Bank for quite long time on the said application, the petitioner knocked the door of this
court by filing the instant writ petition.

The application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was considered by the General Manager
(Personnel), who rejected the same.

As regard the discrimination, I find force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Bank
that while the family of the petitioner was receiving pension whereas late Sri Govid Kumar was not a pension
optee and as such his family was not reeving monthly pension. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the
petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of giving compassionate appointment. The justification given
by the Bank for non-consideration of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground
that the other cases relate to non pensionable category appears to be reasonable and sound. The
compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner was rightly denied by the Bank on the ground that there
was no financial hardship being faced by the deceased's family as they had received money, which was
substantial at the relevant time, after the death of petitioner's father and the family was also receiving
monthly pension. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel are of no avail to him.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.10.2002 passed by opposite party no.4 and the writ
petition lacks merit which is hereby dismissed.
5 All. Brijesh Kumar Vs Union Bank of India & Ors.

669
Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265,G.M. (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary;
(2004) 7 SCC 271, Union Bank of India and others vs. M.T. Latheesh,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.)

1. Heard Mr Jitendra Singh, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, who
has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-Bank.

2. Petitioner's father, namely, Om Ratan, who was a Class IV employee in Union Bank of
India, Kanpur, died in harness on 14.2.1997 during service. Petitioner, who is the eldest son moved
an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds alongwith No Objection Certificate
of his mother and younger brother. When no action was taken by the authorities of the Bank for
quite long time on the said application, the petitioner knocked the door of this court by filing the
instant writ petition.

3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 23.9.2002 directed the opposite parties
to scrutinize the petitioner's representation for his appointment under Dying-in Harness Rules and
decide the same by virtue of a reasoned order in accordance with the Rules.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 23.9.2002, the application of the petitioner
seeking compassionate appointment was considered by the General Manager (Personnel), who
rejected the same vide order dated 17.10.2002.

5. Against the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner amended the writ petition and
challenged the aforesaid order dated 17.10.2002 on the ground that the same had been rejected in
an arbitrary manner by saying that the opposite parties have paid a sum of Rs. 1,11,023/- as
terminal benefits and the family of the petitioner would be receiving Rs. 3,301/- per month towards
family pension.

6. It has also been contended that the General Manager (Personnel)/opposite party no.4 had
adopted a discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner as one Sri Mukesh Kumar, son of late
Govind, was given appointment on compassionate ground even though his family received terminal
benefits to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- approximately.

7. Lastly, it has been contended that the opposite parties manifestly and erroneously
ignored the fact that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members have any source of
income except the family pension.

8. To strengthen his aforesaid assertion, reliance has been placed on Govind Prakash
Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation; 2005 SCC (L & S) 590, Ram Pyarey vs. State Bank of
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
India; 2001(2) UPLBEC 1575, Dhiraj Kumar Dixit Vs. G.M.(Personnel) UCO Bank; 2003(1)
UPLBEC 20, State Bank of India Vs.Ram Pyarey; 2001(2)UPLBEC 1597 and Canara Bank
and another vs. M.Mahesh Kumar [2015(33)LCD 2058].

9. While justifying the impugned order rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment,
it has been urged by Sri M.Altaf Mansoor that the appointment on compassionate is given in
pursuance of a non-statutory scheme formulated by the respondent-Bank, keeping in mind the
observations of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs.State of Haryana (1994) 4
SCC 138. As per the scheme, the compassionate appointment is to be offered by the Bank only in
cases where the Bank is satisfied with the financial condition of the family is such that but for the
provision of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis.

10. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, on examination, it was found that the
family of Late Shri Om Ratan Mahaveer was receiving Rs. 3,301/- per month as family pension
and had already received terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 1,03,023/- considering the liabilities as
nil as informed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the bank has rightly declined to grant
appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.

11. As regards to giving appointment to one Mukesh Kumar son of Late Sri Govind
Kumar, it has been submitted that deceased Mukesh Kumar was not a pension optee. The net
terminal benefits received by the family of late Sri Govind Kumar were only Rs. 1,84,370/- only
which if invested @ 10 % per annum would have fetched them only Rs. 1,536/- as monthly income
which the Bank considered as insufficient to tide over the financial crisis of the family. Therefore, it is wrong
to say that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of compassionate appointment.

12. In this very case, on the demise of Om Ratan, the petitioner staked his claim but his claim was
rejected on the ground that there is sufficient fund with the family to tide over the sudden crisis. It is settled
law that while considering compassionate appointment, the Government or the public authority concerned
has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and only if, it is satisfied that but for the
provisions of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis than a job is offered to the eligible
member of the family.

13. There is no dispute to the fact that the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment to the
dependent of a deceased employee formulated by the Bank is a non-statutory scheme. The Scheme provides
for appointment of dependents of a deceased employee dying in harness and leaving his/her family in penury
and without any means of livelihood.

14. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is
permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or
relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet
certain contingencies. One such exception is in favor of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and
5 All. Brijesh Kumar Vs Union Bank of India & Ors.

671
leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration, taking into account the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would
not be able to make ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the
dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment.

15. Thus, it can be easily summed up that the whole object of granting compassionate employment
is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a
post, much less a post held by the deceased. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family
to such source of livelihood.

16. In Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265, the
questioned cropped up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the retiral benefits are to be
taken into consideration while dealing with the prayer for compassionate appointment. The Apex Court on
the basis of earlier decision rendered in G.M. (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary; (2004) 7 SCC 271 it was
categorically held that the amounts have to be taken into consideration. In Union Bank of India and others
vs. M.T. Latheesh, which has been relied upon by the respondents, the Bank approached the Apex Court
against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala whereby the Bank was ordered to grant employment to the
respondent. The Apex Court while setting aside the order of the High Court of Kerala observed that the right
accrued to the deceased's heir/applicant is a right to get preferential treatment against the general principle of
appointment , subject to the direction of the Bank. In other words the employer is not under obligation to
grant appointment to the dependents. The duty of the employer is only to properly consider the application.

17. It is also settled law that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the
competent authority in this care are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective
finding, arrived after the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed.

18. In the present case, by declining the application submitted by the petitioner after proper
consideration of the same in the light of the relevant parameters, the Bank cannot be said to have acted in an
arbitrary manner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief under the Scheme formulated by the
Bank because financial consideration of the family is not so low that but for the provision of employment, the
family would not be able to meet the crisis.

19. As regard the discrimination, I find force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
for the Bank that while the family of the petitioner was receiving pension whereas late Sri Govid Kumar was
not a pension optee and as such his family was not reeving monthly pension. Therefore, it is wrong to say
that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of giving compassionate appointment. The
justification given by the Bank for non-consideration of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate
grounds on the ground that the other cases relate to non pensionable category appears to be reasonable and
sound. The compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner was rightly denied by the Bank on the
ground that there was no financial hardship being faced by the deceased's family as they had received money,
which was substantial at the relevant time, after the death of petitioner's father and the family was also
receiving monthly pension. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel are of no avail to
him.
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. Before parting, I would like to mention that it is settled law that the compassionate employment
has to be granted in very rare necessitous circumstances.

21. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order
dated 17.10.2002 passed by opposite party no.4 and the writ petition lacks merit which is hereby dismissed.

22. Costs easy.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA-II, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 5502 Of 2016

Sabiya Begam @ Malka ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Devki Nandan Srivastava, Satendra Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of

Mandamus directing respondents/police agency to register First Information Report in compliance of order
dated 3.9.2015,Passed in exercise of jurisdiction under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

Perusal of the application indicates that it has been alleged that the daughter of the petitioner aged about 14
years, was living with the petitioner and was a student of Class IX. Accused Akash is of bad character and
committed the offence of rape upon daughter of the petitioner whereupon she became pregnant.When the
accused was approached, the accused told the petitioner to get the fetus aborted or else the petitioner and
her daughter would be done to death. The petitioner informed the neighbours. It has been alleged that on
account of these happenings, the accused started having enmity.

In the case in hand though order was passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on
3.9.2015 yet without Any reason whatsoever, factual or legal, the F.I.R was not registered.
Investigation was not under taken for over six months. The First Information Report has been
registered after intervention of this court by way of seeking an explanation from the Station
House Officer. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby