1. By means of this Special Appeal, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 9.5.2006 passed by Hon''ble Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52038 of 2005, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner.
2. In the case in hand, the appellant''s father had been discharging duties as Manager with U. P. District Co-operative Bank Ltd, Allahabad and appellant''s father disappeared on 11.6.1983.
3. Appellant and his family members after waiting for some reasonable time applied for succession certificate presuming his civil death and it transpires that the succession certificate was issued on 22.2.1992 and subsequently thereafter the appellant applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 14.10.1997.
4. Appellant''s case was considered in the meeting held on 29.10.1997 and it was resolved to provide compassionate appointment to the appellant. However, when the appellant was asked to produce medical certificate, he appeared before the medical officer and obtained the certificate. Respondent no.3 i.e. Sachiv/Maha Prabandhak, U. P. Sahkari Sewa Sansthagat Sewa Mandal, Lucknow sent a letter to respondent no.2 i.e. Adyaksha, U. P. Sahkari Sewa Sansthagat Sewa Mandal, Lucknow for obtaining approval with regard to compassionate appointment of the appellant. Since then no action was taken, the appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned Single noted that there is inordinate delay and the objective of providing compassionate appointment is to save the family which is in crisis but 23 years have elapsed after the father of appellant/petitioner has disappeared and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition stating that there is no good ground for compassionate appointment after 23 years. Hence, this Special Appeal is before us.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Vivek Yadav v. State of U. P. and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 1. Referring to the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974-Rule 5, this Court has held that taking into consideration that the mother of appellant was illiterate, appellant was minor though the elder son and there were elder sisters. The proviso to Rule 5 provides that it must normally be exercised as for the purpose of dealing with the cases in a just and equitable manner.
8. Looking into the facts of the case, the Division Bench held that the appellant had made out a case for invocation of the power is vested in the authority to waive the time for moving the application. The impugned order of the Single Judge was set aside and relaxation was given.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent referring to a full bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of U. P. and others reported in AIR 2015 Allahabad 47 wherein certain guidelines have been laid down by this Court and any relaxation cannot be granted or extended. It is also to contend that the provisions for grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment after attaining majority.
10. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to contend that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the application of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also having noted the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Ukarda Athor v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 (3) SCC 399 wherein law has been laid down with respect to need for proper consideration of facts and applicable norms, including changed norms. In para 11 of the said judgment the Hon''ble Apex Court has noted that the appellant is the daughter through the first wife and respondent no.3 is the son through the second wife of the deceased, who died on 18.6.1997. Appellant''s mother submitted application on 29.12.1997 stating that her daughter i.e. appellant who is aged 17 years and then a minor studying in 10th standard should be given compassionate appointment when she attains majority.
12. According to the appellant after she attained majority she has submitted another application dated 19.3.1998, seeking compassionate appointment; thereafter the appellant was married in the year 2009. This factual situation of the matter was considered and the matter was remitted back to be considered afresh.
13. In the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar and Others in para 15 referring to the Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme it has been held that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, if the applicant is a minor, the bank would keep the appointment, open till the minor attains the majority.
14. The fact in the said rulings provide therein that till the age of attaining majority by the minor dependant, the time is relaxed to submit an application. In the case in hand, the appellant is said to be the only son of the deceased out of three sisters and although he has been offered appointment on compassionate ground by the bank authorities, the same was not considered and approved by the Chairman. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the filing of the application for compassionate appointment by the appellant does not appear to be belated one and moreover, the Manager and other authorities have taken decision to offer compassionate appointment to the appellant, which was finally rejected by the Chairman. The circumstance has not been considered by the learned Single Judge that after looking into the facts of the case the benefit of dying-in-harness may be given to the family of deceased which is in crisis. In the case in hand, the deceased died leaving behind three daughters and one son and they have not been provided compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge has ignored the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that still the family of deceased was in crisis and he would not have been denied the eligibility to compassionate appointment. The respondent bank at the level of the Bank Manager and other authorities after considering the facts of the case agreed to provide the benefit of compassionate appointment to the appellant, but the same has been rejected by the Chairman of the Bank.
15. In such circumstance, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.5.2006 as well as the impugned order not approving the appointment recommended by the bank manager are set aside and it is for the appellant to make a fresh representation within one month from the date of receipt of this order. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the respondent authority shall consider and shall do the needful to decide the same in the light of aforesaid observations as well as the observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments within two months.
16. According, this Special Appeal is disposed of.
