# Km. Tabassum Farooq v. Punjab National Bank

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 358
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-12
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-tabassum-farooq-v-punjab-national-bank-43634
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Dubey

Compassionate Appointment - PNB employee died in harness on 10.4.1977; bank's compassionate
appointment scheme came into force in 1979; petitioner, a minor at the time of death, applied around 1992;
claim rejected in 1993 as no scheme existed at the time of death and application was beyond prescribed
period - Held, compassionate appointment is a concession under a valid scheme to meet immediate financial
crisis, not a vested right; with 22 years' pendency, petitioner having become overage and family having
survived, object of the scheme stood defeated; no ground for interference. (Paras 1-3, 9-13, 18-21)

Writ Dismissed
4 All. Km. Tabassum Farooq Vs Punjab National Bank
359
Case Law discussed:

## Text

358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. In this case, there is nothing either on record or in the report of the Probation Officer
that after the release the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his
release would expose him to moral, physical or phychological danger.

16. Taking in view the entire spectrum of facts and circumstances, materials available on
record and legal position, the impugned orders passed by both the courts are neither sustainable on
facts nor in law and accordingly, the same are liable to be set aside. Consequently the orders dated
19.11.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and 25.3.2015 passed by the Special
Judge (EC Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.

17. Resultantly, the revision is allowed.

18. Let the revisionist-Amit, involved in case crime No. 595 of 2014 (State Vs. Amit),
under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, PS Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond by the legal guardian of Amit and two heavy sureties of each amount to
the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad to the effect that he will not come into
contact with other offenders.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Service Single No.- 1868 Of 1994

Km. Tabassum Farooq ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar, Anurag Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Dubey

Compassionate Appointment - PNB employee died in harness on 10.4.1977; bank's compassionate
appointment scheme came into force in 1979; petitioner, a minor at the time of death, applied around 1992;
claim rejected in 1993 as no scheme existed at the time of death and application was beyond prescribed
period - Held, compassionate appointment is a concession under a valid scheme to meet immediate financial
crisis, not a vested right; with 22 years' pendency, petitioner having become overage and family having
survived, object of the scheme stood defeated; no ground for interference. (Paras 1-3, 9-13, 18-21)

Writ Dismissed
4 All. Km. Tabassum Farooq Vs Punjab National Bank
359
Case Law discussed:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138
2. SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560
3. General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475
4. Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307
5. State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661
6. Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (1978) 1 SCC 37
7. General Manager, South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhantti, (1974) 4 SCC 335
8. State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar, Special Appeal No. 14 of 2007 (All HC)
9. Punjab National Bank v. Sri Deepak Pandey, Special Appeal No. 867 of 2006 (All HC)
10. Special Appeal No. 688 of 2014, judgment dated 19.11.2014 (All HC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for respondent-Bank and perused the records.

2. This writ petition was filed in the year 1994, challenging the order dated 4.12.1993 as
contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been declined on the ground that the Scheme for compassionate appointment was
not in vogue at the time of death of Late Farooq Ahmad Khan, father of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is patently wrong and
illegal. Under the similar facts and circumstances one Pummi Soori whose father has also died in
the year 1977 has been given compassionate appointment in the year 1990, whereas the claim of
petitioner has been denied in the year 1993 in most arbitrary and illegal manner. It is submitted that
the petitioner is still unmarried and there is no bread-earner in the family. She is still pursuing her
case for compassionate appointment as the conditions prevailing at the time of death of her father
are still existing.

4. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and
others; (1978) 1 SCC 37 as well as The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad
and another Vs. A.V.R. Siddhantti and others; (1974) 4 SCC 335 seeking parity with the persons
who have been given compassionate appointment under the similar facts.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has
no right to claim compassionate appointment. At the time of death of her father late Farooq Ahmad
Khan on 10.4.1977 she was a minor. She had applied for compassionate appointment on attaining
majority sometime in the year 1992. Her claim for compassionate appointment could not be
considered as the Scheme for compassionate appointment had come into effect in the respondentBank in the year 1979 and at the time of death of her father no such Scheme was in vogue. It is
further submitted that it is well settled position in law that a person has to be eligible at the time of
consideration. The relief claimed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
granted at this stage as the petitioner must have attained more than 40 years at present and she is
not eligible for regular appointment in the Bank. Moreover, with the passage of time purpose of
compassionate appointment has been defeated and the compassionate appointment cannot be
treated a mode of employment.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent-Bank has relied on the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar (passed
in Special Appeal No.14 of 2007) as well as Punjab National Bank Vs. Sri Deepak Pandey
(passed in Special Appeal No.867 of 2006), wherein the Division Bench considering the various
judgments of the Apex Court in this regard has come to conclusion that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge is not sustainable and has set aside the same and has allowed the appeal. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for respondent-Bank that the Scheme of compassionate appointment
is no more in existence in the respondent-Bank and at present there is no Scheme of compassionate
appointment. Under the new Scheme only those persons can be considered where the death has
occurred on or after 5.8.2014. It is also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in Special
Appeal No.688 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2014 has declined to interfere in the
order passed by learned Single Judge taking into consideration the fact that the delinquent
employee/appellant has attained the age of 45 years and due to passage of time the purpose of
compassionate appointment has been defeated.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and gone through
the records.

8. This writ petition remained pending in the Court for approximately 22 years. With the
passage of time the purpose with which the writ petition was filed has been defeated as the
petitioner during pendency of the writ petition has exceeded the maximum age limit prescribed for
regular appointment and her family has been able to survive for such a long period. It may be a
hard case where the passage of time has led to denial of any relief to the petitioner for
compassionate appointment, however, this fact cannot be ignored while considering the claim of
the petitioner.

9. By the impugned order the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment was
denied on the ground that at the time of death of late Farooq Ahmad Khan, father of the petitioner,
the Scheme for compassionate appointment under which she is claiming her rights was not in
vogue, as such, her claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petitioner had not
applied within the time limit prescribed under the said Scheme for compassionate appointment and,
as such, her claim for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected. It is submitted that in the
case of Pummi Soori the application for compassionate appointment was moved within the period
prescribed under the Scheme and, as such, her case was different from the petitioner.
4 All. Km. Tabassum Farooq Vs Punjab National Bank
361
11. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana; (1994) 4
SCC 138 while dealing with the concept of compassionate appointment has observed that the
whole object of granting compassionate employment is 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 for post held by
the deceased. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of
livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis then a job is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and
manual categories and hence, they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object
being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The
provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable
and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of
the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved viz. relief against destitution.

12. The Apex Court in the case of SAIL v. Madhusudan Das; (2008) 15 SCC 560
reiterating the aforesaid principle has stated thus:-

"15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on
compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the
rules. The criteria laid down therefore viz. that the death of the sole bread winner of the family,
must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are
raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into
consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible
candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant.
Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an
exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right.?"

(emphasis supplied)

13. In General Manager, State Bank of India and Others v. Anju Jain; (2008) 8 SCC
475 the Apex Court has clearly stated that appointment on compassionate ground is never
considered to be a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality
enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per the settled law, when any
appointment is to be made in Government or semi-government or in public office, cases of all
eligible candidates are be considered alike. The State or its instrumentality making any
appointment to public office, cannot ignore the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. At the
same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of
dependants of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased
employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from
sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread winner. It is an exception to the
general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment.
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. In Union of India and Another v. Shashank Goswami and Another; (2012) 11 SCC
307 the Supreme Court has observed that the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is
based on the premise that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly, such
a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.
However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis
occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service, and,
therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

15. In State Bank of India and Another v. Raj kumar; (2010) 11 SCC 661 it has been
ruled by the Apex Court that the dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any
special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by
the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get
over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is, therefore, traceable
only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever
outside such scheme.

16. Be that as it may, as considerable period has passed and at this stage I am of the
considered view that the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be directed to
be considered. As such, no fruitful purpose would be served in finding out as to whether any
discrimination was done to the petitioner viz-a-viz to Pummi Soori. The Division Bench of this
Court vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2014, passed in Special Appeal No.688 of 2014 while
refusing to grant any indulgence has observed as under:-

"This is hard case where the passage of time has led to denial of any relief to the
appellant for compassionate appointment.
As disclosed in the affidavit itself the appellant is about 45 years of age. In such
circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge may not require any interference
by us in the discretion so exercised, in as much as, even otherwise if the case of the appellant is
directed to be considered at this stage, it will not be possible to offer any appointment keeping in
view the age of the appellant.

For this additional reason as well, we do not find it a fit case to entertain in order
to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. "

17. So far as the legal position that the doctrine of equality before law and equal protection
of laws and equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and promotion is concerned, there
is no dispute that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have full application. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Ramesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) as well as
The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another Vs. A.V.R. Siddhantti
and others (supra) has laid down the said legal position as stated above. The relevant extracts of
Ramesh Prasad Singh's case (supra) on reproduction reads as under:-
4 All. Ramesh Prasad Yadav Vs State Of U.P.
363
"....that the doctrine of equality before law and equal protection of laws and
equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and promotion enshrined in Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution which is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination is attracted only
when equals are treated as unequals or where unequals are treated as equals."

18. In the present case, at the time of filing of the writ petition the petitioner is stated to be
20 years of age. Now, after 22 years she must be 42 years of age. The purpose of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the bread-earner who has died
in harness. It cannot be presumed that the conditions which were existing at the time of death of the
deceased employee will remain the same for 39 years as late Farooq Ahmad Khan has died in the
year 1977.

19. In view of above, I do not find it a fit case to grant any indulgence, at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2032 Of 2012

Ramesh Prasad Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Dinesh Pathak, Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, Rakesh Pathak

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012, passed by Sessions Judge Whereby
the accused was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to seven years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.
The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. is confirmed but the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years
under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 6 years rigorous imprisonment and
the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. is maintained.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State;
Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State Of W. B. [1994] 2 SCC 220;