# Smt. Neelam Singh & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 952
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 64258 of 2008
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neelam-singh-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-46143
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law-Husband of Petitioner no.1 was
a permanent employee of SBI-died during
his service-application for compassionate
appointment
made-rejected
stating
presently no scheme for appointment on
dying in harness exist-only scheme for
payment
of
ex-gratia-2005
scheme
provides only for ex-gratia paymentsuperseded by scheme of 2014 which
revived
the
scheme
providing
compassionate
appointment-mandamus
issued
to
consider
claim
for
compassionate appointment.

W.P. disposed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been denied that there were sanctioned
posts and they were advertised in the
widely
circulated
newspaper
"Dainik
Jagran". The fact that the posts were
sanctioned and the petitioner possessed the
essential
qualification,
has
not
been
adverted to by the Director.

8. In view of above observations, I am
of the opinion that the order of the Director
dated 22nd June, 2009, as is impugned in the
present writ petition, is unsustainable and it is
hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the
Director to pass a fresh order after affording
opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is
at liberty to file a fresh representation along
with supporting documents within three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. The Director shall consider the
representation and the material filed by the
petitioner and pass the appropriate order in
accordance with law expeditiously.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitions is
allowed. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2021)01ILR A952
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Writ-A No. 64258 of 2008

Smt. Neelam Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Singh, Sri Manish Yadav, Sri
Prashant Kumar Tripathi, Sri Rajeev Misra,
Sri Virendra Prakash
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri A.K. Mishra, Ms. Archana
Singh, Sri Vipin Sinha

Civil Law-Husband of Petitioner no.1 was
a permanent employee of SBI-died during
his service-application for compassionate
appointment
made-rejected
stating
presently no scheme for appointment on
dying in harness exist-only scheme for
payment
of
ex-gratia-2005
scheme
provides only for ex-gratia paymentsuperseded by scheme of 2014 which
revived
the
scheme
providing
compassionate
appointment-mandamus
issued
to
consider
claim
for
compassionate appointment.

W.P. disposed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Canara Bank Vs M. Mahesh Kumar, arising out
of Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008

2. Sushma Gosain & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(1989) 4 SCC 468

3. Canara Bank Vs M. Mahesh Kumar, arising out
of Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ
of mandamus directing the respondent nos.
2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner no.2 on a
suitable post in Class-III or Class-IV.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case, as noticed by this Court, are that the
husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, late
Chandra Bhushan Singh was a permanent
employee of State Bank of India, who was
posted as Messenger in Civil Lines Branch,
Allahabad.
On
06.12.2007,
Chandra
Bhushan died during his service and left
behind him two sons, namely, Abhishek
1 All. Smt. Neelam Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
953
Singh-petitioner no.2 and Avinash Singh,
his
widow
wife-petitioner
no.1-Smt.
Neelam Singh and his old ailing parents.
After the death of Chandra Bhushan Singh,
the petitioners have made an application for
appointment on compassionate ground
before the respondent no.2-Chief Manager
Human Resources (Network-III) Local
Head Office Moti Mahal Marg, Lucknow in
favour of petitioner no. 2, namely,
Abhishek Singh, son of late Chandra
Bhushan
Singh.
Vide
letter
dated
06.02.2008, the petitioners were informed
by the respondent no.2 that presently there
is no provision for appointment under the
Dying-in-Harness Scheme, therefore, the
appointment of the petitioner can not be
made, hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that large number of
dependents of Class III & IV, who died
during
service
period,
were
given
appointments by the respondents in various
branches of the State Bank of India, but in
the case of the petitioners, he has not been
given
appointment
on
compassionate
ground, which is illegal. He has further
submitted that only Rs.1,60,000/- has been
paid as fund, which is too meager. He has
further submitted that petitioners have no
other source of livelihood and if the
appointment of the petitioner no.2 is
denied, the petitioners and their family
member will suffer. The petitioner no.2
fulfills all minimum qualifications for
being appointed on any Class-III/Class-IV
posts, therefore, the petitioner no. 2 is
entitled to be appointed as his younger
brother and mother have no objection.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has further submitted that the Ministry of
Finance
has
floated
a
Scheme
for
compassionate appointment in Public
Sector Banks vide letter dated 07.08.2014.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance,
Government of India issued a letter dated
05.12.2014 in response to the request
made by the State Bank of India, whereby
it was decided that all public sector banks
can have both options i.e. compassionate
appointment or payment of lump-sum exgratia amount. He has further submitted
that on the date of death of father of
petitioner no.2 and on the date of making
the
application,
the
compassionate
appointment scheme was in force and,
therefore, the petitioner no.2 is entitled to
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment under the said scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has,
lastly, submitted that after the aforesaid
policy decision taken by the Government
of India, there does not exist any
impediment
in
the
compassionate
appointment, hence, the case of the
petitioner is fully covered under the
Scheme for compassionate appointment in
Public Sector Bank (PSB). In support of
his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara
Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, arising out
of Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008 and other
connected matters.

5. On the other hand, countering the
above said submissions Ms. Archana Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
has vehemently opposed the writ petition
and submitted that a new Scheme i.e. SBI
Scheme
for
Payment
of
Ex-gratia
Lumpsum Amount
was
inducted
on
04.08.2005
and
under
the
aforesaid
Scheme,
the
provisions
giving
compassionate appointment was abolished
and its place, provisions of making
payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount was
inducted.
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Bank has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State Bank of India and another
vs. Raj Kumar passed in Civil Appeal
No.1641 of 2010 decided on 08.02.2010,
wherein the Apex Court directed the
appellant-Bank to process such application
under the new Scheme. Learned counsel for
the respondent-Bank has further submitted
that the deceased employee died much after
enforcement of new scheme inducted on
04.08.2005 in which the provisions of
giving compassionate appointment was
abolished and in its place provisions of
making payment of ex-gratia lumpsum
amount was inducted, hence, the writ
petition
seeking
compassionate
appointment may be dismissed.

7. I have heard Sri Manish Kumar
Tripathi, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. Archana Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent-Bank and
perused the material available on record.

8. Undisputedly, the father of
petitioner no.2 died on 6.12.2007 while he
was serving on the post of Messenger in
Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad and the
petitioners have applied for compassionate
appointment as per "Dying in Harness
Scheme",
but
the
respondent-Bank
informed vide its letter dated 06.02.2008
that
the
claim
for
compassionate
appointment cannot be provided in the light
of aforesaid Scheme i.e. SBI Scheme for
Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount
and, thus, the petitioners were only entitled
for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount
as per new Scheme.

9.

Normally,
three
basic
requirements to claim appointment under
any
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment are: (i) an application by a
dependent
family
member
of
the
deceased employee; (ii) fulfillment of the
illegibility criteria prescribed under the
scheme; and (iii) availability of posts, for
making such appointment. If a scheme
provides for automatic appointment to a
specified family member, on the death of
any employee, without any of the
aforesaid requirements, it can be said that
the scheme creates a right in favour of
family member for appointment on the
date of death of the employee. On the
other hand, if a scheme provides that on
the death of an employee, if a dependent
family member is entitled to appointment
merely on making of an application,
whether any vacancy exists or not, and
without the need to fulfill any eligibility
criteria, then the scheme creates a right in
favour of the applicant on making the
application. Normal scheme contemplates
compassionate
appointment
on
an
application
by
a
dependent
family
member, subject to the applicant fulfilling
the prescribed eligibility requirements.

10. In Sushma Gosain and others
vs. Union of India and others, (1989) 4
SCC 468, the law with regard to
employment on compassionate ground for
dependent of a deceased employee is well
settled.

"9. We consider that it must be stated
unequivocally that in all claims for
appointment on compassionate grounds,
there
should
not
be
any
delay
in
appointment. The purpose of providing
appointment on compassionate ground is to
mitigate the hardship due to death of the
bread
earner
in
the
family.
Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in
distress. It is improper to keep such case
1 All. Ashok Kumar Tyagi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
955
pending for years. If there is no suitable
post for appointment supernumerary post
should be created to accommodate the
applicant."

11. In the case of Canara Bank vs. M.
Mahesh Kumar, arising out of Civil
Appeal
No.260
of
2008
and
other
connected matters decided on 15.05.2015,
the Court held as under:

"14. It is also pertinent to note that
2005 Scheme providing only for ex-gratia
payment
in
lieu
of
compassionate
appointment stands superseded by the
Scheme of 2014 which has revived the
scheme
providing
for
compassionate
appointment. As on date, now the scheme in
force
is
to
provide
compassionate
appointment. Under these circumstances,
the appellant- bank is not justified in
contending
that
the
application
for
compassionate
appointment
of
the
respondent cannot be considered in view of
passage of time."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid case, has also observed that the
monetary benefit would not be replacement
of the bread-earner, but that would
undoubtedly bring some solace in the given
situation.

13. It is also pertinent to note that
2005 Scheme provides only for ex-gratia
payment
in
lieu
of
compassionate
appointment, which stands superseded by
the Scheme of 2014 which has revived the
scheme
providing
for
compassionate
appointment. Thus, I find that after policy
decision dated 05.04.2014 taken by Bank
of India in respect of compassionate
appointment, the case of the petitioners can
be considered in light of the letter dated
05.04.2014 issued by Government of India.

14. In view of the aforesaid
observations, mandamus is issued to the
respondent-Bank to consider the claim of
the petitioners within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of
copy of this order in light of the Scheme of
compassionate
appointment
in
Public
Sector Bank w.e.f. 05.08.2014 issued vide
its Letter No.F.No.18/2/2013-IR and letter
dated 05.12.2014 issued by Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Financial Services as well as judgment
passed by Apex Court in the case of
Canara Bank (supra).

15. The writ petition stands disposed
off.

16. There will be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)01ILR A955
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Criminal Revision No. 530 of 2014

Ashok Kumar Tyagi & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri S.S. Shukla, Sri Dharmendra Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri V.K. Agnihotri

A. Criminal Law - Rejection of final report
submitted by investigating officer - Indian
Penal Code 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B;
Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 190 -
It is well settled law that Magistrate is not
bound by the final report submitted by
Investigating Officer, rather S. 190 Cr.P.C.