# Smt. Atro Devi and another v. Punjab National Bank and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 962
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23802 of 2005
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-atro-devi-and-another-v-punjab-national-bank-and-others-40712
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Compassionate appointment-denial on
the ground-the financial condition of the
claimant is soundful-after the death of
bread earner-getting Rs.4198/- towards
monthly
pension-apart
from
Rs.5,81,272/- inclusive of terminal dues
Insurance-held-unless and until-taking
into consideration the death cum retiral
benefits- the scheme framed by the bank
can not be illegal-can not be interfered
under writ jurisdiction- ratio laid down in
Smt. Kanti Srivastava's case-No longer a
good law.

Held: Para 7

From a perusal of the scheme, it does not
appear that it is arbitrary, however, until
and unless the petitioners are able to
demonstrate
that
taking
into
consideration
the
death-cum-retrial
benefits would be illegal, his petition
cannot
succeed.
To
buttress
his
contention that such benefits cannot be
taken into consideration to adjudge the
financial condition of the family, he
draws support from the Single Judge
decision in the case of Smt. Kanti
Srivastava (Supra).
Case law discussed:
2004 (6) J.T. 418
W.P. 38847/02 decided on 20.5.03

## Text

962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
have jurisdiction to hear a revisionapplication and thus the revision filed
before Deputy Director of Consolidation
Ballia against the order of Settlement
Officer Consolidation Mau would be
maintainable.

11. I am afraid the interpretation
being given by the learned counsel for the
respondents to the observation made by
the
division
bench
are
totally
misconceived.
The
question
before
division bench was as to whether the
Deputy Director of Consolidation could
decide a revision without file being
transferred to him by the District Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation.
While,
rejecting the arguments that Officer
hearing a revision - application gets
jurisdiction to hear it by the authority of
the order of transfer of the case to his file
by the District Deputy Director of
Consolidation, it was observed by the
division bench as follows;

"This provision read along with
various notifications issued by the State
Government from time to time and the
order of the Director clearly show that a
revision-application can be made to a
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
that
all
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation in Uttar Pradesh have
jurisdiction
to
hear
a
revision
-
application is not conferred by an order
passed under rule 65 (1-A) but by the
provision of the Act mentioned above and
the
notifications
of
the
State
Government".

12. The aforesaid observation made
by the Division Bench has to be read with
reference to the facts of the case and in
context of the question which was being
considered. If the aforesaid observation
are to be read in the manner as suggested
by the learned counsel for the respondents
in that case any Deputy Director of
Consolidation in the entire State of U.P.
could seize upon any case and decide it
himself irrespective of the fact whether
the
dispute
lies
within
territorial
jurisdiction of the district where he is
posted or not. This would not only be
against the provisions of the Act but
would also result into total chaos.

13. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, the two case laws relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondents
being clearly distinguishable are of no
help to him. On the contrary the law laid
down in the case of Darbari Lal with
which I am in respectful agreement
applies with full force.

14. As a result, the writ petition
stands allowed, the impugned order of
Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
10.3.2006 is hereby quashed. The revision
filed by the answering respondents before
Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia
is not maintainable and stands dismissed.
It would however be open to the
respondents to file revision afresh before
the competent court.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23802 of 2005

Smt. Atro Devi and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Punjab National Bank and others

 ...Respondents
3 All] Smt. Atro Devi and another V. P.N.B., and others
963
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vinod Sinha
Sri S.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Tarun Verma

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Compassionate appointment-denial on
the ground-the financial condition of the
claimant is soundful-after the death of
bread earner-getting Rs.4198/- towards
monthly
pension-apart
from
Rs.5,81,272/- inclusive of terminal dues
Insurance-held-unless and until-taking
into consideration the death cum retiral
benefits- the scheme framed by the bank
can not be illegal-can not be interfered
under writ jurisdiction- ratio laid down in
Smt. Kanti Srivastava's case-No longer a
good law.

Held: Para 7

From a perusal of the scheme, it does not
appear that it is arbitrary, however, until
and unless the petitioners are able to
demonstrate
that
taking
into
consideration
the
death-cum-retrial
benefits would be illegal, his petition
cannot
succeed.
To
buttress
his
contention that such benefits cannot be
taken into consideration to adjudge the
financial condition of the family, he
draws support from the Single Judge
decision in the case of Smt. Kanti
Srivastava (Supra).
Case law discussed:
2004 (6) J.T. 418
W.P. 38847/02 decided on 20.5.03

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tarun
Verma for the respondents.

2. This petition is directed against
orders dated 18.6.2004 and 5.3.2005
whereby the claim for compassionate
appointment has been rejected by the
respondents.

3. The husband of petitioner no. 1
and father of petitioner no. 2 Sri Dharam
Pal Singh died in harness on 3.3.2003
while working as cashier-cum-clerk in
Punjab National Bank. The claim for
appointment of petitioner no. 2 on
compassionate ground was rejected vide
order dated 18.6.2004 mentioning that the
family was in receipt of the terminal dues
and was receiving family pension etc.
However, application was again moved
bringing to the notice of the respondent
that the deceased left behind a large
family including unmarried daughters and
the terminal benefit and the monthly
pension was not sufficient to meet the
financial requirement, in pursuance of
which the petitioner was informed that the
matter be treated as closed, thus, the
petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has urged that the terminal benefits and
pension given at the time of death cannot
be taken into consideration for the
purpose
of
adjudging
the
financial
position of the distressed family. In
support of his contention he has relied
upon a Single Judge decision of this Court
rendered in the case of Smt. Kanti
Srivastava v. State Bank of India and
others decided on 14.2.2003, (Writ
Petition No. 35344 of 2001). He has also
urged that looking to the size of the
family specially the unmarried daughters,
the amount said to be paid to the
petitioners was not sufficient to make two
ends meet and, therefore, he is entitled to
appointment.

5. The concept of compassionate
appointment is an antithesis to the normal
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
recruitment rules and is saved at the altar
of Articles 14 and 16 by reasons of
humanitarian consideration. The sole
object of compassionate appointment is to
give succour to the distressed bereaved
family of the sole bread earner so that
they are able to tide over the sudden
financial crisis. It does not require
reference to decisions of the Apex Court
to say that neither it is a right nor can it be
treated
an
alternative
source
of
recruitment. By giving compassionate
appointment, the sole object is to
strengthen the financial position of the
family which is deprived of the regular
salary earned by the deceased sole bread
earner. If otherwise, the family, inspite of
the demise of the bread winner, is
financially comfortably placed, the heirs
or
the
dependent
cannot
seek
compassionate employment as it would
amount to violation of the sacrosanct
object of the compassionate appointment.
Keeping that in view, the claim of the
petitioner is to be examined.

6. Compassionate appointment in
the respondent Bank is governed by a
scheme
known
as
'Scheme
for
Employment of the Dependent of the
Employees who died while working in the
Bank'. One of the most important
ingredient for grant of compassionate
appointment as mentioned in the scheme
is the financial condition of the family. It
is provided in the scheme that the
financial condition of the family would be
examined after considering the family
pension, gratuity received, provident
fund, compensation by the Bank or
Welfare fund, Insurance proceeds etc. It is
apparent from the record that the
petitioners received a total sum of
Rs.5,81,272/- inclusive of terminal dues,
Insurance amount etc. and they are also
getting Rs.4,198/- per month as pension
and they have their own dwelling concrete
house. Though, it is contended that a sum
of Rs.2,85,000/- was spent on the medical
treatment of the deceased employee, the
bank
had
reimbursed
a
sum
of
Rs.1,10,000/- only as vouchers and bills
for
the
said
amount
were
found
admissible. No doubt the petitioner has a
large family, but the amount received in
lump sum and the monthly pension cannot
be said to be meager.

7. From a perusal of the scheme, it
does not appear that it is arbitrary,
however, until and unless the petitioners
are able to demonstrate that taking into
consideration
the
death-cum-retiral
benefits would be illegal, his petition
cannot succeed. To buttress his contention
that such benefits cannot be taken into
consideration to adjudge the financial
condition of the family, he draws support
from the Single Judge decision in the case
of Smt. Kanti Srivastava (Supra).

8. It would be worthwhile to note
that the aforesaid scheme has been
approved by the Apex Court in Punjab
National Bank v. Ashwani Kumar
Taneja (2004 (6) J.T. 418). The ratio laid
down in Smt. Kanti Srivastava's case
(Supra) was followed by the same learned
Single Judge in a later decision of
Durgesh Kumar Tiwari v. Chief,
General Manager, State Bank of India
decided on 20.5.2003, (Writ Petition
No.38847 of 2002) and the Bank
challenged the said decision of Durgesh
Kumar Tiwari (supra) before the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.996 of 2006
(Chief General Manager, SBI and
others v. Durgesh Kumar Tiwari)
where the said judgment has been held to
be unsustainable in law and has been set
3 All] Shiv Nath and another V. Bangai
965
aside. Thus, the said ratio is no longer a
good law.

9. For the reasons stated above, this
is not a fit case for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Rejected. Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28252 of 2006

Shiv Nath & another ...Plaintiff/Petitioner
Versus
Bangai
 ...Defendant/Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri H.C. Pathak

Counsel for the Respondent:

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 17-rule IAdjournment of case-beyond 3 occasionTrail Court refused adjournment and
proceeded with hearing-held-not propernumber as provided in the proviso-be
intereperated
as
directory
and
not
mandatory-before granting adjournment
the court must be satisfied with such
extraordinary
circumstances-otherwise
the suffering party be compensated by
award of cost-necessary direction issued
in this regard.

Held: Para 4

The petitioners-plaintiffs' adjournment
application had been rejected by the trial
court on 30.3.2005 as P.W. 1 Ram Raj,
who was in the process of being cross
examined, was not present. It was noted
that the witness on account of illness
could not reach the court and obviously
if one witness who was in the process of
cross examination is not present on
account of his illness such prayer for
adjournment should have been allowed,
subject to award of costs. On the very
next day i.e. 31.3.2005 this witness was
presented before the trial court but his
cross examination was not permitted
and the second impugned order was
passed on the petitioners' application
given under Section 151 C.P.C. In view of
the
availability
of
an
exceptional
circumstance, which was beyond control
of the other plaintiff to produce P.W. 1
(the other plaintiff) in the witness box
on
30.3.2005,
the
prayer
seeking
adjournment made by the petitioners
should have been granted. Of course, if
the court finds in the face of it, the
reasons of illness given to be false it
does have a right to reject such prayer
but here what appears to have actually
clicked to the court for refusing the
adjournment is nothing but the provision
contained in the proviso to Rule 1 of
Order 17 C.P.C. and that does not appear
to be a just and proper approach and
interpretation of the court to that
provision.
Case law discussed:
2005 (6) SCC-344

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.)

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners.

1.

The
plaintiffs-petitioners'
application for adjournment was rejected
by the trial court vide Annexure No. 5 on
the ground that earlier on three occasions
plaintiff's such prayer of adjournment had
been granted and in the light of proviso
added to Order 17 Rule 1 C.P.C. no
adjournment beyond three dates could be
granted by the court. The petitioners
subsequently moved the trial court with
another application under Section 151
C.P.C. (Annexure No. 6) for permitting
Ram Raj, one of the plaintiffs present in
the court, to be cross examined by the