Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State Bank of India

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Mar 2012LPA/31/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent Appeal against Single Judge dismissing writ petition for compassionate appointment. Court relied on Supreme Court ruling that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right. Appeal allowed: appellant directed to file fresh application under new Scheme; Bank directed to process application and pay ex-gratia amount within four months.

What did the court decide?

i) Appellant directed to file fresh application under new Scheme. ii) Respondent Bank directed to process application and pay lump sum ex-gratia amount within four months.

Suresh Kumar Vs State Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 31 of 2007 Date of decision: 3.3.2012

¶2

Suresh Kumar son of late Sh. Kashmir Singh, resident of village Matlag, P.O. Maseran, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

¶3

….Appellant.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Bank of India, through Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Kasumpti, Shimla-9.

¶6

The Manager, State Bank of India, Chatrokhri, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE 10 OF THE LETTERS PATENT ACT.

¶9

Coram:

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting? No .

¶12

For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

¶13

For the respondents: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

_____________________________________________________ Per Deepak Gupta, J (oral).

¶15

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21^st May, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner (appellant herein) praying that he be granted compassionate appointment under the Scheme framed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank).

¶16

We need not go into the entire factual matrix of the case in view of the fact that now the law has been well settled by the Supreme Court that in cases relating to the State Bank of India no direction can be issued to consider the case of the kin for grant of compassionate appointment.

It is not disputed that the earlier Schemes whether of the year 2000 or of 2002 were replaced by a new scheme and as per this new Scheme which came into force w.e.f 31st January, 2006, compassionate appointment is not permissible. All the Schemes came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State bank of India and another vs. Raj Kumar (2010)11 Supreme Court Cases 661 . One of the questions raised before the Apex Court was whether new scheme could take away the rights of the persons which accrued in their favour prior to the enforcement of the new scheme. The Apex Court held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment and does not vest any right in the kin of the deceased employee to claim employment as a matter of right and at best it is a concession, to be considered for appointment.

¶21

The Apex Court specifically held that where the earlier Scheme is abolished and the new Scheme which replaces the earlier schemes provides that all the pending applications will be considered only in terms of new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

¶22

12: “Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, up to the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable”.

¶23

13: “Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new

¶24

¶25

scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts”.

¶26

¶27

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the appellant obviously cannot be granted compassionate appointment. However, his claim for grant of monetary benefits must be considered in accordance with the new Scheme. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is setaside with the following directions:

¶28

i) That the appellant and/or his family may file a fresh application under the new Scheme.

¶29

ii) The respondent Bank is directed to process such application under the new Scheme, if and when made, and pay the lump sum ex-gratia amount due in terms of that Scheme, to the beneficiaries within four months of the receipt of the application.

¶30

¶31

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

( Deepak Gupta ) Judge

¶33

March 3, 2012 (vt)

¶34

( V.K. Ahuja ) Judge

Suresh Kumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.P.S.F.C. Vs Presiding Judge

State Vs Kapil Dev

N.H.P.C. Vs Sunita Garung

F.C.Sikh Girls High Sch. Vs Deepika

Indu Bhatia 3.PM Vs Union of India

State Vs Pawan Kumar