# Smt. Sheela Devi v. M.D., Union Bank of India and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 465
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-02-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47758 of 2005
- **Bench:** D.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sheela-devi-v-m-d-union-bank-of-india-and-others-40943
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226Compassionate appointment-husband of
petitioner died in harness-within one
month claimed appointment-non of the
grounds for rejection of claim found in
existence-time consumed in litigationcan not be treated as ground for
rejection-held-entitled for appointment
on compassionate ground.

Held: Para 12

Next it is urged that now since more
than six years have expired and the
family has managed to survive, thus,
giving any relief at this point of time
would defeat the object of lending a
helping hand to tide over the sudden
crises. Foremost, such a plea cannot be
raised by the Bank because the widow
had approached them within a month
claiming
compassionate
appointment
and the Bank rejected her claim and
forced her to approach this Court earlier.
Again it has rejected her claim which
grounds have been held to be incorrect
or misleading.

(B) Constitution of India-Art. 226-Writ
Jurisdiction
Practice
of
Proceduredirection for appointment-normally writ
court should not issue such direction-but
where the authorities found negligentdispite of repeated direction failed to
exercise their consideration- futile -
direction
shall
not
be
issued-heldconsidering the entire facts and the
circumstances in view of-law laid down
by Division Bench of this Court-direction
issued to issue letter of appointment
within six weeks.

Held: Para 14

Normally, the Court is very loathe to
grant a mandate itself for appointment
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
but as has been noted hereinabove,
twice the Bank has raised the same
bogey and misleading grounds to reject
the claim of the widow. Since the Bank
appears to have a closed mind on the
issue and is harassing a young widow by
forcing her to approach the Court time
and again it would be against the
interest of justice to remand the matter
for decision afresh. Applying the ratio of
a Division Bench of this Court rendered
in the case of Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava
Vs. University of Allahabad and others
(2002) (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2502, which has
been affirmed by the Apex Court, remand
would be futile.
Case law discussed:
2002 (3) UPLBEC-2502

## Text

2 All] Smt. Sheela Devi V. M.D., Union Bank of India and others
465
appointment runs counter to the claim of
the petitioner: It is acknowledged position
of law that compassionate appointment
cannot: be new source of recruitment
otherwise, as pointed out by the Apex
Court in State of Hariyana and others
Vs. Rana Devi and others AIR 1966
Supreme Court 2445, such claim of the
petitioner cannot be upheld on the touch
stone of Articles 14 or 16 of the
Constitution of India in as much as the
claim for compassionate appointment is
considered, as reasonable or permissible
on the basis of sudden crisis occurred in
the family of such employee, who has
served the State and dies while in service.

12. Reliance placed upon the
circular dated August 16, 1996 (Annexure
-4 to the writ petition) is misplaced one
and has hardly any application to the facts
of the present case. Only this much has
been said in the said circular that the
facility of compassionate appointment
shall be admissible only when the
competent authority treats the employee
as dead, under Section 108 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

13. In view of the above discussion,
the writ petition lacks merit and is
therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2007

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47758 of 2005

Smt. Sheela Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vivek Ratan

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226Compassionate appointment-husband of
petitioner died in harness-within one
month claimed appointment-non of the
grounds for rejection of claim found in
existence-time consumed in litigationcan not be treated as ground for
rejection-held-entitled for appointment
on compassionate ground.

Held: Para 12

Next it is urged that now since more
than six years have expired and the
family has managed to survive, thus,
giving any relief at this point of time
would defeat the object of lending a
helping hand to tide over the sudden
crises. Foremost, such a plea cannot be
raised by the Bank because the widow
had approached them within a month
claiming
compassionate
appointment
and the Bank rejected her claim and
forced her to approach this Court earlier.
Again it has rejected her claim which
grounds have been held to be incorrect
or misleading.

(B) Constitution of India-Art. 226-Writ
Jurisdiction
Practice
of
Proceduredirection for appointment-normally writ
court should not issue such direction-but
where the authorities found negligentdispite of repeated direction failed to
exercise their consideration- futile -
direction
shall
not
be
issued-heldconsidering the entire facts and the
circumstances in view of-law laid down
by Division Bench of this Court-direction
issued to issue letter of appointment
within six weeks.

Held: Para 14

Normally, the Court is very loathe to
grant a mandate itself for appointment
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
but as has been noted hereinabove,
twice the Bank has raised the same
bogey and misleading grounds to reject
the claim of the widow. Since the Bank
appears to have a closed mind on the
issue and is harassing a young widow by
forcing her to approach the Court time
and again it would be against the
interest of justice to remand the matter
for decision afresh. Applying the ratio of
a Division Bench of this Court rendered
in the case of Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava
Vs. University of Allahabad and others
(2002) (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2502, which has
been affirmed by the Apex Court, remand
would be futile.
Case law discussed:
2002 (3) UPLBEC-2502

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

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Vivek Ratan for the respondentbank and perused the records of both the
writ petitions.

2. This petition is directed against an
order dated 3.5.2005 by which the claim
for compassionate appointment has been
rejected.

3. The husband of the petitioner was
working as Clerk /Typist in the Union
Bank of India and posted at Ballia. He
died in harness on 22.3.1999 and the
petitioner moved an application alongwith
relevant
documents
seeking
compassionate appointment on 10.4.1999.
By an order dated 19.2.2000 the claim
was rejected on the ground that the
husband of the petitioner had not
completed ten years of service in the
respondent-bank and as such she was not
entitled for compassionate appointment.
This was subjected to challenge in writ
petition no. 43349 of 2003 and after
exchange of pleadings the said writ
petition was allowed by a reasoned order
on 3.3.2005 holding that under the
scheme there was no such limitation and
as such it remanded the matter to the
respondent-bank to consider her claim
afresh in view of the scheme dated
19.2.1997.

4. In pursuance thereof the said
impugned order has been passed rejecting
her claim on various grounds which we
would presently examine.

5. When this petition was heard on
7.7.2005 it was directed to come up
alongwith record of earlier writ petition
which had been allowed on 3.3.2005.

6. Before examining the grounds on
which the claim has been rejected, it
would be appropriate to examine the
background facts.

7. Admittedly, the deceased husband
of the petitioner who joined the Bank in
September, 1989 died in harness at the
age of 33 years leaving behind his widow,
the petitioner aged about 30 years and two
sons and a daughter who were minors and
students. The total terminal benefits
payable at the time of death under the
heads of Provident Fund, Gratuity,
Insurance
and
Leave
encashment
amounted to Rs.3,02,640/- while the
liability
under
various
loans
was
Rs.2,13,800/- so the net payable amount
was only Rs.88,840/- which according to
the Bank itself could have earned interest
of Rs.740/- only. In the order dated
19.2.2000 the Bank admits that the entire
burden of the family has fallen on the
shoulder of the petitioner as there is no
other earning member in the family. The
husband of the petitioner would have
normally been in service till the year 2024
or 2026 depending on the retirement age.
2 All] Smt. Sheela Devi V. M.D., Union Bank of India and others
467
8. In the aforesaid background, let
us examine the ground on which the claim
has been rejected.

9. In paragraph no. 9 of the
impugned order the first ground taken for
rejection is that "the deceased employee
had served the Bank for a very short
period." This very ground was repelled by
this Court in its judgment dated 3.3.2005
passed in the earlier writ petition. The
second ground of rejection is that "family
of the deceased employee received a
terminal benefits amounting to Rs.3.02
lacs".
This
is
palpably
false
and
misleading. The net amount allegedly
paid
to
the
petitioner
was
only
Rs.88,840/- which admittedly could earn
a monthly income of Rs.740/- only. The
next ground given is that "the present
claim, after a lapse of six years from the
death of the employee, defeats the very
object of the scheme". This ground is also
palpably false as it is the own case of the
respondent Bank that after the death of
her husband on 22.3.1999 the petitioner
had applied within a month on 10.4.1999.
Thereafter, the order goes on to recite that
the claim of compassionate appointment
is not a vested right but it holds that "It is
to be granted at its discretion only in
deserving cases."

10. As noted hereinabove out of
three grounds given for rejecting the
claim, two have been found to be false or
misleading. Can a family of four,
including three minor students survive on
notional monthly income of Rs.740/-?
The answer can only be a big no. No
doubt, none can claim compassionate
appointment as a matter of right but the
Bank which is a Government of India
Undertaking has to act in a fair manner.
The scheme framed by it and so also
recited in the impugned order reflects that
the object of compassionate appointment
is "to enable the family to tide over the
sudden crises". But twice the Bank has
rejected her claim firstly on non-existing
ground
and
secondly
on
false
or
misleading grounds. She has been made
to approach this Court second time which
reflects that the Bank has a closed mind
and does not want to abide by the scheme
framed by itself. Being an instrumentality
of the State, it has to justify deviation
from its policy enshrined under the
scheme. It is not their case that no
compassionate appointment was given
under the scheme to anyone.

11. However, the learned counsel
appearing for the Bank contended that the
petitioner had earlier approached this
Court against the order dated 19.2.2000
after a delay of 3 1⁄2 years and the Court
did not consider the issue of laches and
allowed the writ petition. Be it so,
admittedly no appeal was filed against the
judgment and order dated 3.3.2005 and
this Court in coordinate jurisdiction
cannot sit in appeal against the said
judgment.

12. Next it is urged that now since
more than six years have expired and the
family has managed to survive, thus,
giving any relief at this point of time
would defeat the object of lending a
helping hand to tide over the sudden
crises. Foremost, such a plea cannot be
raised by the Bank because the widow
had approached them within a month
claiming compassionate appointment and
the Bank rejected her claim and forced
her to approach this Court earlier. Again it
has rejected her claim which grounds
have been held to be incorrect or
misleading.
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
13. Lastly it is urged that now under
a new scheme she is not entitled to
appointment but only some monetary
benefit. This argument also cannot be
accepted
because
vide
the
earlier
judgment dated 3.3.2005, which has
become final, the claim has to be
considered under the scheme dated
19.2.1997.

No other point has been urged.

14. Normally, the Court is very
loathe to grant a mandate itself for
appointment but as has been noted
hereinabove, twice the Bank has raised
the same bogey and misleading grounds
to reject the claim of the widow. Since the
Bank appears to have a closed mind on
the issue and is harassing a young widow
by forcing her to approach the Court time
and again it would be against the interest
of justice to remand the matter for
decision afresh. Applying the ratio of a
Division Bench of this Court rendered in
the case of Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava Vs.
University of Allahabad and others
(2002) (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2502, which has
been affirmed by the Apex Court, remand
would be futile.

15. For the reasons above, this
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order dated 3.5.2005 is hereby
quashed and the respondent bank is
directed
to
grant
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner
expeditiously, preferably within a period
of six weeks from the date of submission
of a certified copy of this order. Petitioner
would be entitled to her costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50537 of 2005

Indra Mohan Dikshit

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Aditya Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri D.K. Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Government Private aided Technical
Education Institutions Regulations 1996Regulation 14 (6)-Cancellation of entire
selection-post of Principal-name of two
senior
most
lecturer
including
the
petitioner and the respondent no. 5
send-respondent No. 5 stood first in
merit list-director refused to appoint on
the ground of overage-when the vacancy
advertised-held-the petitioner being at
serial No. 2 automatically entitled to be
placed at serial No. 1-when there is no
allegation of mal-practice-No illegality in
recommendation by selection committee
shown-entire
selection
can
not
be
cancelled.

Held: Para 5

Therefore, the second recommended
person by the selection committee in the
panel
of
selected
candidates
was
required to be considered. In case we
uphold the order of Director then it
would result in re-advertisement of the
vacancy
and
unnecessary
expenses
would
be
involved
in
making
the
advertisement which would further delay
the appointment of a regular principal.