# Smt. Anju Jain v. The G.M., (P.& HRD). S.B.I. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1161
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-03-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45006 of 2001
- **Bench:** V.C. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-anju-jain-v-the-g-m-p-hrd-s-b-i-and-others-40772
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Compassionate
Appointment-claim
rejected-taking into account the past
conduct
of
the
employee-died
in
harness-held-it is not a benefit provided
to
the
deceased
employee-but
for
providing
immediate
relief
to
the
dependents to survive-view takes by the
Bank authority-held-impermissible in the
eye of law being in violation of principle
of natural justice.

Held: Para 7

No past acts of misconduct of the
employee who dies in harness can be
taken into account while considering the
case of a family member for employment
on compassionate ground, as it is not a
benefit
provided
to
the
deceased
employee but for providing immediate
succor to its dependants to survive. The
decision
of
the
respondents
is
impermissible in the eye of law being in
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
violation of the principles of natural
justice.
Case law discussed:
2005 (Supp.) 2 SCC-689
2005 (1) UPLBEC-978
2004 (2) UPLBEC-1503
2004 (3) UPLBEC-2244

## Text

3All] Smt. Anju Jain V. The G.M., (P.& HRD). S.B.I. and others 1161
gives him also that without which the
thing cannot exist, does not apply in the
facts of the instant case for the reason that
immediately after declaration of the result
and issuance of the certificate, the
election came to an end, and the
Returning Officer became functus officio,
i.e. after discharging the duties of the
Returning Officer, his authority stood
terminated
automatically.
Thus,
the
Returning
Officer
had
lost
the
competence to deal further even if some
votes
were
left
to
be
counted
inadvertently. Thus, the order passed by
the Returning Officer cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law.

17. The issue involved herein has
been examined by various Division Bench
of this Court in Smt. Ram Kanti Vs.
District Magistrate & Ors., (1995) AWC
1465; and Shambhu Singh Vs. State
Election Commissioner & Ors., 2000 (91)
RD 619, wherein it has been held that
declaration of the result once made cannot
subsequently be cancelled. Once the
election process comes to an end, the
Authority becomes defunct.

18. In view of the above, petition
succeeds and is allowed. The certificate
issued in favour of respondent no.3
declaring her as a successful candidate
(Annex CA-2) is hereby quashed and
consequently
the
earlier
certificate
declaring the petitioner successful stands
revived. It will, however, be open to the
respondent
no.3
to
approach
the
appropriate forum, i.e. the Election
Tribunal for seeking appropriate remedy,
if she is so advised.

19. A copy of this order may be
issued to the learned counsel for the
parties by 01.04.2006 on payment of
usual charges.
 Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45006 of 2001

Smt. Anju Jain

...Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager (Personnel & HRD),
State Bank of India & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.M. Shukla
Sri M.C. Tewari
Sri O.P. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vipin Sinha
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Compassionate
Appointment-claim
rejected-taking into account the past
conduct
of
the
employee-died
in
harness-held-it is not a benefit provided
to
the
deceased
employee-but
for
providing
immediate
relief
to
the
dependents to survive-view takes by the
Bank authority-held-impermissible in the
eye of law being in violation of principle
of natural justice.

Held: Para 7

No past acts of misconduct of the
employee who dies in harness can be
taken into account while considering the
case of a family member for employment
on compassionate ground, as it is not a
benefit
provided
to
the
deceased
employee but for providing immediate
succor to its dependants to survive. The
decision
of
the
respondents
is
impermissible in the eye of law being in
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
violation of the principles of natural
justice.
Case law discussed:
2005 (Supp.) 2 SCC-689
2005 (1) UPLBEC-978
2004 (2) UPLBEC-1503
2004 (3) UPLBEC-2244

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.)

1. Sri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Sinha,
learned counsel for the respondents-Bank
are
present.
Counter
and
rejoinder
affidavits have been exchanged in this
case. On the joint request of learned
counsel for the parties, this writ petition is
being decided finally at the admission
stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court.

2. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner for quashing the
impugned
order
dated
16.7.2001
(Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition)
declining
the
appointment
of
the
petitioner on compassionate ground by
the Assistant General Manager, State
Bank of India and for a direction
commanding the respondents-Bank to
give appointment to the petitioner in the
Bank
on
compassionate
ground on
account of death of her husband who died
on 25.1.2000 while working as Assistant
in the Karhall Branch of State Bank of
India, Agra.

3. The facts of the case in brief are
that the husband of the petitioner Deepak
Kumar Jain who was working as Assistant
in the Karhall Branch, State Bank of
India, Agra expired on 25.1.2000 leaving
behind him the petitioner and three
daughters aged about 8 years, 6 years and
3 years respectively and his old parents.
Neither any moveable or immoveable
property nor cash balance or jewellery
was left behind by him and there was no
other source of income except of family
pension
which
was
insufficient
to
maintain his family. His widow-the
petitioner submitted an application for
appointment on compassionate ground in
the Bank on account of death of her
husband,
which
was
rejected
by
respondent no. 3- Chief General Manager
(Personnel and HRD) vide letter dated
21st May, 2001 without providing any
opportunity of hearing to her. The
petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before
the Chairman, State Bank of India,
Central Office, Mumbai on 7th March,
2001 averring therein all the facts and
also that the petitioner and her family
should not be penalized on account of
earlier
acts
of
her
late
husband,
whatsoever. The petitioner's appeal was
also dismissed by the Chairman, State
Bank of India and dismissal order was
communicated to her vide its letter dated
16.7.2001.
The
petitioner,
being
aggrieved, filed this writ petition.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents Bank it has been stated
that Sri D.K. Jain- husband of the
petitioner was placed under suspension by
the competent authority w.e.f. 30.5.1995
and was served with a charge sheet dated
6.9.1995 for having committed gross
misconduct, inter alia that on 23.1.1995
he accepted a deposit of Rs.200/- each
from two customers and issued counter
foils but the amount was credited to their
respective accounts on the next date i.e.
24.1.1995; that on 2.2.1995 he submitted
a false T.A. Bill for Rs.109/- in
connection with his visit to Tundla
Branch on 27.1.1995 to attend an inquiry
which he did not attend; that on 20.3.1995
he purchased a Cheque for Rs. 300/- from
Seo Ka Bazar (Agra) Branch without
3All] Smt. Anju Jain V. The G.M., (P.& HRD). S.B.I. and others 1163
keeping sufficient balance in his Account.
All the said charges levelled against him
were found to be proved and thus the
disciplinary authority imposed a penalty
of reducing his basic pay by two stages
and stopping of five annual future
increments with cumulative effect of
postponing his further increments. In the
counter affidavit it has been further stated
that the Bank had introduced the scheme
of compassionate appointments in the
year 1979, which was amended from time
to time. The applicable scheme at relevant
time
for
compassionate
appointment
updated up to 1.1.1998, inter alia,
provides that the object of granting
compassionate appointment is to enable
the bereaved family on sudden crisis due
to death of the bread earner but to offer
compassionate appointment was subject
to the satisfaction of the competent
authority of the respondents- Bank. It has
also been stated in the counter affidavit
that in the present case the compassionate
appointment of the petitioner-a dependant
of the deceased employee was not
covered under the terms and conditions of
the Scheme provided for the said purpose
and that there did not exist any vested
right in the petitioner and, therefore, she
was not entitled to any benefit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble
the apex Court as well as of this Court
rendered in the case of Smt. Phoolwati
Vs. Union of India & others (2005)Supp
(2) S.C.C. 689); Mritunjay Mishra Vs.
Chief General Manager, State Bank of
India & others ((2005) 1 UPLBEC 978);
Ajay Kumar Shevdy Vs. The Chief
Security Commissioner & others (2004) 2
UPLBEC 1503) ; and in Chief General
Manager, State Bank of India & others
Vs. Durgesh Kumar Tiwari (2004) 3
UPLBEC 2244. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that when the
petitioner
applied
for
compassionate
appointment on the death of her deceased
husband, who was an employee of the
respondents- Bank the earlier Scheme was
fully applicable to the petitioner's case,
copy of which is annexed as Annexure
No. 4 to the Supplementary Affidavit.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents-Bank has submitted that the
earlier
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment was withdrawn and was
substituted by another scheme from the
date of its enforcement which is not
applicable in the present case. However
he has admitted that the earlier scheme
was applicable in the present case. A copy
of the said scheme for appointment on
compassionate grounds for dependants of
deceased employees/ employees retired
on medical grounds has been filed by the
respondents- Bank as Annexure No. 2 to
the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for
the respondents- Bank has submitted that
clause 6 (d) of the Scheme as updated up
to
1.1.1998
provided
that
prior
Government concurrence was mandatory
for
considering
the
cases
where
disciplinary action had been taken against
the employee or disciplinary proceedings
were pending or contemplated against
him but later on the matter was
reconsidered by the government and it
was decided that such proposal may be
considered by the Boards of the Bank in
terms of the Government guide lines and
the matter should not be referred to the
Government in future. Learned counsel
for the respondents-Bank submitted that
accordingly
in
pursuance
to
the
Government decision the Executive of the
Central Board of the Bank approved the
revised authority structure to deal with the
1164 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
cases provided for in the amended scheme
of May, 2002 in which as per clause 11
(A) (a) thereafter the Managing Director
& Group Executive (National Bank
Group) shall be competent authority for
approving
such
proposal
for
compassionate
appointment
in
cases
where a penalty for minor misconduct
was inflicted on the deceased employee. It
has been further submitted that as per
clause 11 (D) of the scheme, the
Executive of the Central Board would be
competent authority to give prior sanction
for appointment under the Scheme if
penalty
for
gross
misconduct
was
inflicted.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties at length and looked in to the
record of the case as well as the
authorities cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and I find that at the
time when the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on the death
of her deceased husband, the earlier
Scheme was applicable to the petitioner's
case and the amended Scheme came into
force from May, 2002. I am of the view
that the inapplicable provisions of the
clauses of the amended Scheme could not
be taken resort to by the respondents as a
ground to deprive/scuttle the rightful
benefits that accrue to the petitioner only
due to some charges of misconduct of the
deceased husband of the petitioner for
which he had already been penalized. No
past acts of misconduct of the employee
who dies in harness can be taken into
account while considering the case of a
family member for employment on
compassionate ground, as it is not a
benefit
provided
to
the
deceased
employee but for providing immediate
succor to its dependants to survive. The
decision
of
the
respondents
is
impermissible in the eye of law being in
violation of the principles of natural
justice.

8. In the result the petition succeeds
and is allowed and the impugned orders
dated
21.5.2001
and
16.7.2001
(Annexures No. 2 and 4 to the writ
petition) are hereby quashed. Accordingly
the respondents-Bank is directed to
provide an appointment to the petitioner
on compassionate ground on account of
the death of her husband, in accordance
with law and in terms of the earlier
Scheme, which was inforce at that time
within one month from the date a certified
copy of this order is placed before the
concerned
authority-respondent
Bank.
There will be no order as to costs.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27402 of 2006

Shishu Pal Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Daya Shankar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921,
Section 16-G.(7)-approval of suspension
order-Principal of college-suspended by
the
management-papers
sent
for
approval-No order passed within 60 days