# Vishal Kumar Balmiki v. Punjab National Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 31682 of 2018
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishal-kumar-balmiki-v-punjab-national-bank-ors-50098
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
appointment-petitioner's father died in
harness
-petitioner
submitted
an
application
for
compassionate
appointment which was rejected by
respondent/Bank-the petitioner is a
graduate and the respondents are
excluding
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner for being considered on a
Class IV post in sub staff cadre solely
on the ground that the recruitment
rules carry the legend of graduate
candidate not being eligible-the said
condition
in
the
recruitment
rules
would only be applicable with respect
to where the respondents are making
direct
recruitment
and
not
on
compassionate
grounds-directions
issued for fresh consideration as the
petitioner would not be rejected only
on the ground of he being a graduate
otherwise the object of the scheme for
compassionate appointment would fail
as it helps the deceased's family to
tide
over
the
sudden
financial
crisis.(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approval of the District Basic Education
Officer the post was advertised on
11.07.2002
and
it
found
that
the
appointment was illegal. The said fact
appears to be wrongly noted in the earlier
judgment of this Court as the newspaper
'Tarun Mitra' dated 01.02.2004 is filed
along with present writ petition and the
same was also submitted before the B.S.A.
Ignoring the actual document, the B.S.A.
was not supposed to refer to a date in the
order. Further in the impugned order it is
claimed that the management/head master
was asked to provide notarized affidavit
along with all the documents. There is no
reason for initiating a different procedure in
the present case which is not followed in
other matters. All the documents were in
the office of B.S.A. since the initial stage
when the earlier B.S.A. had granted
approval by order dated 20/21.02.2004.
Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that all
the documents were present before the
B.S.A. while considering the present
matter. Hence, there was no occasion to ask
for an affidavit and to refuse to believe the
document only on the said ground. Next
ground taken in the impugned order for
rejecting the case of petitioner is that in
furtherance of order dated 22.07.2013
passed in Writ Petition No.46110 of 2005
one
Sevantak
Pathak
was
granted
appointment under Dying in Harness Rules,
1974. Thus, there are no further vacancy
available to accommodate the petitioner.

11. It goes without saying that right of
petitioner on the basis of her initial
appointment since 20/21.02.2004 when
earlier B.S.A. granted approval to the
petitioner and in furtherance of which
petitioner joined on 25.02.2004. Her rights
cannot be disturbed by any appointment or
order passed with regard to any other
person. Even otherwise, an appointment
under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 can
also be accommodated on a supernumerary
post. The same cannot impact rights of
petitioner. The last ground is that the
publication
was
made
only
in
one
newspaper. Along with the record only one
newspaper was submitted. The matter is
decided by B.S.A. after a gap of around 10
years. Such a dispute was required to be
settled when earlier approval was granted
on 20/21.02.2004. Such an irregularity
cannot cost an appointment which is
approved around 10 years back.

12. Thus, the impugned order dated
12.03.2004 cannot stand and is set aside.

13. Respondents are directed to pay
salary of the petitioner from the date of his
initial joining 25.02.2004 along with
interest of 6% within a period of three
months from the date a certified copy of
this order is placed before it. They are also
directed to ensure regular salary to
petitioner in future.

14. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 244
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-A No. 31682 of 2018

Vishal Kumar Balmiki ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sangam Lal Pandey
4 All. Vishal Kumar Balmiki Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
245
Counsel for the Respondents:
Prashant Kumar, Gopal Kr. Srivastava

A.
Civil
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment-petitioner's father died in
harness
-petitioner
submitted
an
application
for
compassionate
appointment which was rejected by
respondent/Bank-the petitioner is a
graduate and the respondents are
excluding
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner for being considered on a
Class IV post in sub staff cadre solely
on the ground that the recruitment
rules carry the legend of graduate
candidate not being eligible-the said
condition
in
the
recruitment
rules
would only be applicable with respect
to where the respondents are making
direct
recruitment
and
not
on
compassionate
grounds-directions
issued for fresh consideration as the
petitioner would not be rejected only
on the ground of he being a graduate
otherwise the object of the scheme for
compassionate appointment would fail
as it helps the deceased's family to
tide
over
the
sudden
financial
crisis.(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Endra Narayan Rajpoot & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., W.P. No. 1709 of 2017

2. Kartikey Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Spl. Appeal
No. 229 of 2016

3. Alok Kumar Misra Vs St. of U.P. W.P. No.
6655 of 2016

4. Punj. & ors. Vs Anita & ors. (2015) 2 SCC 170

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent- Bank.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 02.05.2018 passed by the opposite
party no. 1 as communicated by the
opposite party no. 2, contained in Annexure
No.
1
to
the
writ
petition
with
consequential benefits;

(ii) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite
parties
and
directing
them
particularly the opposite party no. 1 to
consider the claim of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground on
the post of Clerical Cadre, as submitted
vide
application
dated
14.08.2017,
contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ
petition and issue necessary orders in this
regard."

3. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the petitioner states that he is confining
his claim for compassionate appointment to
a Class IV post. The aforesaid statement is
recorded.

4. The case set forth by the petitioner
is that his father who was employed as a
Sweeper in the respondent- Bank died in
harness on 03.07.2017. The petitioner
claims to have submitted an application for
grant of compassionate appointment in
August, 2017 which was processed but
subsequently the same has been rejected
vide order dated 02.05.2018, a copy of
which is annexure 1 to the writ petition.
The ground which emerges from the order
of rejection dated 02.05.2018 is that the
petitioner had been called for the brief
interface for the job in clerical cadre as
SWO (Single Window Operator-A) but he
was not found suitable for the said post.
The detailed grounds as to why the
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner has not been found suitable have
been indicated in the counter affidavit filed
by the Bank by annexing an order dated
27.04.2018, a copy of which is annexure
C3 to the counter affidavit from which it
emerges that upon conduct of the brief
interface in order to assess the suitability of
the petitioner for the proposed job it was
found that the candidate/ petitioner is not
having any knowledge of computer and
thus it was opined that the petitioner was
not suitable for the job in clerical cadre and
hence his claim has been rejected vide
order impugned dated 02.05.2018.

5. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that when he applied
for compassionate appointment under the
respondents, his claim should have been
considered
sympathetically
by
the
respondents and his candidature should not
have been rejected in a pedantic manner on
the ground that he was not found suitable in
an interface having no knowledge of
computer. The other argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that when the
petitioner
is
seeking
compassionate
appointment as such, even though the
respondents have rejected his claim for a
Class III post but his candidature could also
be considered on a Class IV post on which
he may be found suitable and eligible.

6. On the other hand, Sri Gopal
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent Bank argues
that a circular dated 25.09.2014, a copy of
which is annexure C1 to the counter
affidavit, is a scheme for compassionate
appointment
for
a
dependent
family
member of deceased employee. It is argued
that the case of the petitioner was
considered for a Class III post but he was
not found suitable and hence his claim was
rejected vide the order dated 2.5.2018. It is
further contended that as per clause 7 of the
scheme, the posts to which the appointment
can be made are both clerical and sub staff
cadre. As per Sri Srivastava, Sub Staff
cadre are the posts in the category of Class
IV
which
include
peon/sweeper
etc.
Placing reliance on Clause 8 of the said
policy, it is contended that Clause 8.2
categorically provides that an applicant for
compassionate appointment should be
eligible and suitable for the post in all
respect under the provisions of the relevant
recruitment rules.

7. Reliance has also been placed on
the relevant recruitment rules, a copy of
which has been passed to the Court and has
been kept on record, the High Court being a
Court of record, to contend that for peons
in subordinate cadre, the qualification
prescribed is class tenth and twelfth
standard and the graduate candidates are
not eligible to be selected and the petitioner
being a graduate is not eligible for a Class
IV post/peon/sub staff.

8. The argument of Sri Srivastava is
that admittedly the petitioner is a graduate
and thus keeping in view the recruitment
rules, a graduate is not eligible for a Class
IV post as such, there is no infirmity in the
respondent-Bank in not having considered
the petitioner against the Class IV post and
the petitioner not having been found
suitable for a Class III post, his candidature
has consequently been rejected.

9. In this regard, Sri Srivastava has
placed reliance on the judgments of this
Court in the cases of Endra Naryan
Rajpoot and 11 Ors Vs. State of U.P and
ors passed in Writ Petition No. 1709 (SS)
of 2017, Kartikey Vs. State of U.P and
Ors passed in Special Appeal No. 229 of
2016, Alok Kumar Misra Vs. State of
4 All. Vishal Kumar Balmiki Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
247
U.P passed in Writ Petition No. 6655
(SS) of 2016 as well as the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab
and ors VS. Anita and Ors reported in
(2015) 2 SCC 170.

10. Heard the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting parties and
perused the records.

11. From a perusal of records it
emerges that the petitioner's father was
working as a Sweeper in the respondent-
Bank who died in harness on 03.07.2017.
The petitioner staked his claim for
compassionate
appointment
under
the
relevant rules and policy of the bank. The
petitioner being a graduate was called for
an interface by the bank but the bank did
not find the petitioner suitable for being
appointed in the clerical cadre and thus his
claim for compassionate appointment has
been rejected, vide order dated 2.5.2018.

12. After perusal of records and the
reasons as have been assigned by the
respondents in the impugned order dated
02.05.2018 read with the order dated
27.04.2018 it emerges that in the brief
interface in order to assess the suitability of
the petitioner, it was found that the
petitioner is not having any knowledge of
computer and thus his claim was rejected.
The Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the order by which the claim
of the petitioner has been rejected in the
clerical cadre more particularly when the
prospective employer i.e Bank has itself not
found
the
petitioner
suitable
for
appointment.

13. Whether the petitioner can also be
considered for appointment in the sub staff
cadre which pertains to Class IV post is
next the question to be decided by the
Court.

14. The respondent- Bank has issued
a policy for compassionate appointment
dated 25.09.2014. The relevant provisions
of the policy are reproduced below :

"1. NAME OF SCHEME:

The Scheme is to be called the
"Scheme for compassionate appointment to
a dependent family member of a deceased
employee/ employee retired on medical
grounds due to incapacitation before
reaching the age of 55 years.

2. OBJECT OF THE SCHEME:

To enable family of a deceased
employee/employee retired on medical
grounds due to incapacitation before
reaching the age of 55 years, tide over the
sudden financial crisis.

4. COVERAGE

4.1
To
a
dependent
family
member of a permanent employee of the
Bank who-

(a)
dies
while
in
service
(including death by suicide)

(b) is retired on medical grounds
due to incapacitation before reaching the
age of 55 years. (Incapacitation is to be
certified by a duly appointed Medical
Board in a Government Medical College/
Government
District
Head
Quarter
Hospitals/ Panel of Doctors nominated by
the Bank for the purpose).

(4.2) For the purpose of the
Scheme "employee" would mean and
include only a confirmed regular employee
who was serving full time or part-time on
scale wages, at the time of death/retirement
on medical grounds, before reaching age of
55 years and does not include any one
engaged on contract/temporary/casual or
any person who is paid on commission basis.
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7.
POSTS
TO
WHICH
APPOINTMENTS CAN BE MADE

7.1 The appointment shall be
made in the clerical and sub-staff cadre
only.

8. ELIGIBILITY

8.1 The family is indigent and
deserves immediate assistance for relief
from financial destitution; and

8.2 Applicant for compassionate
appointment should be eligible and suitable
for the post in all respects under the
provisions of the relevant Recruitment
Rules."

15. Perusal of the said policy which is
called
Scheme
for
compassionate
appointment
would
indicate
that
the
scheme
is
titled
as
"
Scheme
for
compassionate appointment to a dependent
family
member
of
a
deceased
employee/employee retired on medical
grounds". Clause 2 of the object of the
scheme is to enable family of a deceased
employee/employee retired on medical
grounds due to incapacitation before
reaching the age of 55 years, tide over the
sudden financial crisis. The coverage of the
policy, as per Clause 4, includes dependent
family member of a permanent employee
of the Bank who dies while in service.
Clause 7 of the Policy indicates the posts in
which appointment can be made which is
both clerical and sub staff cadre. The
eligibility as per Clause 8. 2 is that the
applicant for compassionate appointment
should be eligible and suitable for the post
in all respects under the provisions of the
relevant recruitment rules.

16. Once the object of the scheme
itself is to enable the family of the deceased
employee to tide over the sudden financial
crisis
on
account
of
the
death,
consequently, Clause 8 of the scheme
would have to be understood in the context
of
the
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment itself i.e to tide over the
sudden financial crisis. Once the petitioner
is admittedly a graduate obviously he
would be Class X and Class XII pass and
consequently, he would be eligible for
appointment as a peon in the subordinate
cadre or the sub staff cadre.

17. The argument of Sri Srivastava
while not considering the claim of the
petitioner for a sub staff cadre is that as per
Clause 8.2, the petitioner should be eligible
and suitable for the post in all respect under
the provisions of the relevant recruitment
rules and the relevant recruitment rules
specifically provide that the graduate
candidates are not eligible. As already
indicated above, the scheme contemplates
appointment on compassionate grounds in
order to tide over the sudden financial
crisis. Obviously, the recruitment rules are
to
be
followed
whereby
a
higher
qualification is not be taken into account
while making direct recruitment. Here, the
case is not one of direct recruitment but is
of
compassionate
appointment.
The
petitioner is a graduate and the respondents,
as per their argument, are excluding the
candidature of the petitioner for being
considered on a Class IV post/peon in
subordinate cadre/sub staff cadre solely on
the ground that the recruitment rules carry
the legend of graduate candidate not being
eligible. In the view of the Court the said
condition in the recruitment rules would
only be applicable with respect to where
the
respondents
are
making
direct
recruitment and not on compassionate
grounds. This would be apparent from the
fact that Clause 8.2 of the policy provides
that the person should be eligible and
suitable for the post and when seen in the
context of the scheme being applicable for
4 All. Suneel Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
249
the purpose of compassionate appointment,
the same would obviously entail the
petitioner to be eligible as per the
recruitment rules for a Class IV post
meaning thereby that he would have to
have the qualification of Class Xth or Class
XIIth or equivalent and by no stretch of
imagination can the respondents be allowed
exclude a graduate candidate for the
purpose of compassionate appointment on
sub-staff cadre as the same would run
against
the
policy
of
providing
compassionate appointment to tide over
sudden financial crisis.

18. So far as the judgments over
which Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank
has placed reliance, suffice it to say that the
judgments of Endraa Narayan Rajpoot
(supra) & Alok Kumar Mishra (supra)
pertain to cases where the persons were
staking their claim on the basis of an
advertisement issued by the Commission
i.e for the purpose of direct recruitment and
the
said
cases
did
not
pertain
to
compassionate appointment. So far as the
Division Bench judgment in the case of
Kartikey (supra) is concerned, the same
also does not pertain to compassionate
appointment and thus in the view of the
Court none of the three judgments would
have any applicability or would be attracted
to the facts of the present facts case. So far
as the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Anita (supra) is concerned the
same again pertains to a case of direct
recruitment and not to compassionate
appointment. Accordingly, none of the
aforesaid judgment have any applicability
in the facts of the instant case.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is disposed of
with the direction to the respondent no. 3
i.e Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank,
HRD Section, Zonal Office, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow who is said to be competent
authority or any other competent authority
to consider the case of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment in the sub staff
cadre or against any Class IV post. The
case of the petitioner would not be rejected
only on the ground of he being a graduate.

20. Let such a consideration be done
within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Writ-A No. 37062 of 2014

Suneel Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashish Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Chandra Mohan Jha
University, Meghalaya, Act, 2009-Section
48-Education-degree-validity-Bachelor
degree obtained by from CMJ University
are
valid
in
view
of
judgment
of
Meghalaya High Court passed in Writ(C)
No. 177 of 2014 and Amendment in
Section 48 of Amendment Act 2019-the
verification of both the students are
completed according to the records of the
University and the degree of both the
aforesaid students are valid.

The petition is allowed. (E-6)