Judgment:
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order (Annexure 3) dated April 19, 2002 passed by the General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, refusing appointment to one of the sons of the deceased employee who died in harness came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9383 of 2002 and made a request that the order refusing the compassionate appointment deserves to be quashed as it does not take into consideration the criteria fixed in the policy of the respondent Bank. C.W.J.C. No. 9383 of 2002 after hearing the parties was dismissed by the learned single Judge on August 16, 2002. Therefore, the petitioners have come before this Court in letters patent appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submits that a bare perusal of the policy would indicate that after the death of bread-earner not only cash assistance or liquidity in the hands of the family are to be seen but the other responsibility and the liabilities of the family including education of the minor children and expenses needed for the marriage of unmarried daughter are also to be taken into consideration. He submits that the orders dated April 19, 2002 is too technical and does not take into consideration the true import and effect of the policy. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the policy in relation to compassionate appointment is not a policy to appoint each and every dependent of an employee but appointments can only be offered to those persons who are needy and fall within the fours of the policy. He submits that Chapter 10.6.12 of the policy relating to compassionate appointment deals with the financial condition of the family and hence the present case does not fit within the fours of the policy. The General Manager was justified in refusing the appointment. We have heard the parties.
4. Undisputedly vide Annexure-2 the Deputy General Manager made a recommendation in favour of the petitioners observing that the family is in a miserable financial condition and the Deputy General Manager was of firm opinion that in absence of employment in the family the family members will have to face the crisis caused by the sudden demise of late K.N. Tiwary. With these observations the Deputy General Manager made a strong recommendation in favour of the family for grant of employment on compassionate ground. The proposed recommendation and the matter was placed before the General Manager who took into account the amounts received by the family, a sum of Rs. 3.33 lakhs towards Provident fund while 1.74 and 1.01 lakhs were received towards gratuity and leave encashment. The investments were Rs. 0.56 lakhs towards the L.I.C. The General Manager observed that the family was possessed of liquid assets to the tune of Rs. 6.64 lakhs. Out of this the General Manager deducted a sum of Rs. 0.82 and 0.40 lakhs which were found to be cash liability of the family. He also observed that the family was possessed of a house worth 4.75 lakhs and moveable properties worth Rs. 0.25 lakhs. After deducting the liabilities from the liquid cash he observed that the family was possessed of Rs. 5.42 lakhs. He observed that the family pension would be Rs. 5,808.00 per month and the interest on investments and 75% of the net terminal benefits would be about Rs. 8,858.00. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 : 1995-I-LLJ-798, the General Manager observed that the petitioner's family is not entitled to the compassionate appointment. We have gone through the said judgment and have also gone through the observation made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1596 : 2000 (6) SCC 493 : 2000-II-LLJ-1. The Supreme Court in the matter of Balbir Kaur (supra) has observed as follows at p. 7 of LLJ:
'73. .......But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family. This is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of Security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.'
5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Balbir Kaur (supra) was concerned about the future of the family and the security/protection which would stand removed immediately on the death of the employee. The Supreme Court very kindly observed that the family security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and the insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment to provide some solace to the family.
6. Undisputedly, two of the minor sons are college going students and the family has one unmarried daughter. In these days of high rising price when index number is marching on the road of escalation there it would be travesty of the law and justice to say that an amount of Rs. 5.42 lakhs would provide a big solace to the family. It is commonly known to all that the education these days is not cheap and one is required to spend good fortune in the marriage of the family member.
7. The order passed by the General Manager even otherwise does not take into consideration the policy wherein it says that assets of the family and liabilities, if any, would be a material factor for consideration for determining the financial condition of the family.
8. In the present case, the totality of the assets shows that the family is not a very well to do family and if the compassionate appointment, is not provided to the family member then the family will have to face hardship.
9. The learned single Judge, in our opinion, though was justified in relying upon the observation made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) was not justified in refusing the appointment simply on the ground that the family would get monthly pension and lump sum interest over the liquid cash available with them. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a perfect case for compassionate appointment.
10. The order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. Similarly, the order passed by the General Manager on April 19, 2002 is also quashed. The respondent State Bank of India is hereby directed to proceed further in the matter and provide compassionate appointment to the Petitioner No. 2 in accordance with the policy.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.