# Km. Sonam Sharma v. Bank of Baroda and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1178
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-09-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3066 of 2007
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-sonam-sharma-v-bank-of-baroda-and-others-41742
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art
226Compassionate appointment petitioner's
father died in harness on 29.6.04-claim
by vidow rejected due to overage on
6.4.05-application by petitioner being
son put claim on 31.5.05 rejected in garb
o G.O. Dated 30.06.2006 and 12.10.06
instead of that Rs. 6 lacs as ex-gratia
payment-held-both Government Order
have
not
retrospective
applicationentitled for Compassionate appointmentnecessary direction issued.

Held: Para 6

The ratio of the aforesaid decision is that
the circular, which was in existence at the
time of the moving of the application has
to be taken into consideration. On facts, it
3 All] Km. Sonam Sharma V. Bank of Baroda and others
1179
is admitted between the parties that the
application of the petitioner was moved on
31st May, 2005. This was obviously prior
to the issuance of the circulars dated 4th
October, 2005 and 2nd February, 2006.
Apart from this, the circulars aforesaid do
not in any way wipe out the effect and the
rights that had accrued in favour of the
petitioner prior to the issuance of the said
circulars. This is evident from a bare
perusal of the same and as per the clauses
contained in the subsequent circular dated
2nd February, 2006. Accordingly, the
action of the respondents in denying
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner is contrary to the position of law
as discussed hereinabove.
Case law discussed:
JT (3) SC 35, Special Appeal No. 954 of 2009.

## Text

1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
consideration is whether there is a provision
for Ex post-facto sanction. The rules
themselves do not so provide as noted
earlier. On a reading o the rules including
Rule 5, it would be clear that the
employment leave must be sanctioned
before an employee can go on a leave. This
being the position no ex post facto leave can
be granted.

11. We are therefore clearly of the
opinion that the very object of the provision
was to shed excess employees. At the same
time, the decision making process was of
the sanctioning authority, who had the
discretion either to sanction or not to
sanction the leave. No employee could
therefore proceed on leave without an
appropriate order from the sanctioning
authority.

12. In the instant case the appellant
proceeded to go on employement leave
without it being sanctioned. We therefore
find no fault in the action taken by the
respondents, consequently there is no merit
in the appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed to that extent.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
draws the attention of the Court to the letter
dated 11th June, 2010 whereby he was given
time to resume his duties. It is submitted
that on account of pending proceedings, he
had not joined and in these circumstances
he has to be given an opportunity to resume
his duties.

14. Considering the submission
advanced and considering the fact that the
respondents themselves by the notice dated
11th June, 2010 had given an option to the
appellants
o
resume
duties,
on
an
application being moved by the appellant
herein, before the concerned authorities,
they are to consider the same favorably and
pass appropriate orders as early as possible
but not later than fifteen days from the date
of receipt of application.

The appeal is disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3066 of 2007

Km. Sonam Sharma

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda and others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.D.Singh 'Shekar'
Sri R.D.Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Kartikeya Saran
Sri Vipin Sinha
Sri A.K. Singh
A.S.G.I.

Constitution
of
India
Art
226Compassionate appointment petitioner's
father died in harness on 29.6.04-claim
by vidow rejected due to overage on
6.4.05-application by petitioner being
son put claim on 31.5.05 rejected in garb
o G.O. Dated 30.06.2006 and 12.10.06
instead of that Rs. 6 lacs as ex-gratia
payment-held-both Government Order
have
not
retrospective
applicationentitled for Compassionate appointmentnecessary direction issued.

Held: Para 6

The ratio of the aforesaid decision is that
the circular, which was in existence at the
time of the moving of the application has
to be taken into consideration. On facts, it
3 All] Km. Sonam Sharma V. Bank of Baroda and others
1179
is admitted between the parties that the
application of the petitioner was moved on
31st May, 2005. This was obviously prior
to the issuance of the circulars dated 4th
October, 2005 and 2nd February, 2006.
Apart from this, the circulars aforesaid do
not in any way wipe out the effect and the
rights that had accrued in favour of the
petitioner prior to the issuance of the said
circulars. This is evident from a bare
perusal of the same and as per the clauses
contained in the subsequent circular dated
2nd February, 2006. Accordingly, the
action of the respondents in denying
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner is contrary to the position of law
as discussed hereinabove.
Case law discussed:
JT (3) SC 35, Special Appeal No. 954 of 2009.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Kartikeya Saran holding brief of Sri
Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 to 4. None appears on
behalf of the respondent no. 5.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her
father died on 29th June, 2004 while
working in the respondent-Bank in harness.
Consequent thereto, the petitioner's mother
applied for compassionate appointment,
which claim was rejected on 6th April, 2005
on account of her advanced age. The
petitioner
moved
an
application
for
compassionate appointment on 31st May,
2005. The respondents have refused to
accept the request of compassionate
appointment and have alternatively offered
a financial sanction of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six
lacs) as ex-gratia payment described as
financial relief to the family.

3. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that in view of the scheme, which was
prevalent at the time of death of the
petitioner's father, the petitioner is entitled
for being considered for compassionate
appointment and any subsequent circular
issued by the Bank would not divest the
petitioner of her legitimate claim of
consideration. He relies on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of State
Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur
reported in JT (3) SC 35. He has further
invited the attention of the Court to the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank and another Vs. Smt. Vijay
Laxmi Srivastava and another (Special
Appeal No. 954 of 2009) decided on
14.07.2009. He submits that the rejection of
the claim of the petitioner is founded on the
erroneous application of a circular and,
therefore, the relief claimed for by the
petitioner by quashing the orders dated 30th
June, 2006 and 12th October, 2006 should
be granted with a further direction to engage
the petitioner on compassionate basis.

4. Sri Saran, learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank submits that it is on
account of the circular dated 4th October,
2005 read with the subsequent circular
dated 2nd February, 2006 that the claim of
the petitioner cannot be considered and she
has been, under the new scheme, offered exgratia payment which satisfies her claim. It
is submitted that in view of this subsequent
circular, no claim for compassionate
appointment can be entertained.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and keeping in view the
submissions raised, the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of
India (supra) in paragraph 30 rules as under:

"Finally in the fact situation of this
case, Sri Sukhbir Inder Singh (late), Record
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Assistant (Cash & Accounts) on 01.08.1999
in the Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar branch
passed away. The respondent, widow of Sri
Sukhbir
Inder
Singh
applied
for
compassionate appointment in the appellant
Bank on 05.02.2000 under the scheme
which was formulated in 2005. The High
Court also erred in deciding the matter in
favour of the respondent applying the
scheme formulated on 04.08.2005, when
her application was made in 2000. A
dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided
on the basis of a scheme that came into
place much after the dispute arose, in the
present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim
of the respondent that the income of the
family of deceased is Rs.5855/- only, which
is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by
Late Shri.
Sukhbir
Inder Singh,
in
contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not
hold water."

6. The ratio of the aforesaid decision
is that the circular, which was in existence at
the time of the moving of the application
has to be taken into consideration. On facts,
it is admitted between the parties that the
application of the petitioner was moved on
31st May, 2005. This was obviously prior to
the issuance of the circulars dated 4th
October, 2005 and 2nd February, 2006.
Apart from this, the circulars aforesaid do
not in any way wipe out the effect and the
rights that had accrued in favour of the
petitioner prior to the issuance of the said
circulars. This is evident from a bare perusal
of the same and as per the clauses contained
in the subsequent circular dated 2nd
February, 2006. Accordingly, the action of
the respondents in denying compassionate
appointment to the petitioner is contrary to
the
position
of
law
as
discussed
hereinabove.

7. The orders dated 30th June, 2006
and 12th October, 2006 are quashed. The
writ petition is allowed.

8. The respondent-Bank is directed to
forthwith consider the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment
and issue necessary orders within a period
of six weeks from the date of presentation
of a certified copy of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL.SIDE
DATED: 18.11.2010 LUCKNOW

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J.

Case: - U/S 482/378/407 No. 4478 of 2010

Faiyaz

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of U.P
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Girish Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Section
207(2),
457-release
applicationvehicle ceased by RTA-rejected by
CJM-held-perfectly justified-call for no
interference-liberty
to
approach
before
the
Assistant
Transport
Authority
or
any
other
officer
authorised
by
State
Govt.
under
section
207(2)-who
will
pass
appropriate order in accordance with
law.

Held: Para 15

Considering the law laid down by this
Court in the above cited case, I do not
find any ground to take a different
view other than the view taken by this
court in the above cited cases. I am of
the view that the application moved
by the petitioner for release of the