Partly allowed

Smt Manju Bala Sharma v. Uco Bank and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Mar 2021CW/5612/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that strictly applying an age threshold of 18 years to deduct unmarried daughters' share from family income for compassionate appointment was erroneous. The Court declared the denial illegal and modified the relief to a lump sum payment in lieu of appointment.

What did the court decide?

Granting of a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000 in lieu of compassionate appointment within one month.

Smt Manju Bala Sharma Vs Uco Bank and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5612/2000

¶3

Smt. Manju Bala Sharma Wd/o Late Shri Nand Kishore Sharma, aged 34 years, Resident of House No.2046, Deena Nath Ji Ka Rasta, Behind Mistri Khana, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

Versus

¶5

Department, 12 2. Assistant 3.

,?‘ye

"W =C

For Petitioner(s)

HON'BLE MR. JU

KASH SHARMA

23/03/2021

I. The petitioner b as assailed the letter dated 04.09.2000 p nt-bank whereby the application for compassionate-app **>%W%W ,Try# < * * was rejected applying <$ff4<~%?& &.-i y scheme and calculation form6ia'fo It was stated that the income of the family was higher than 6O0/0 of the gross salary of the deceased employee and therefore, the request for compassionate appointment was not acceded to.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly the benefits payable to the deceased employee's wife on death of her husband, ought not be taken into consideration as income and principally the calculation formula for income is unjustified. The

¶14

purpose of offering compassionate appointment is to tide over future difficulties which a family shall face on account of certain death of an employee of the Bank. Learned cunsel further submits that even otherwise, the calculation as per the formula for assessing the income was not properly done. As per the calculation formula for arriving at the financial position of the income of the familv under the Scheme for recruitment of . .%.... .:at ,. **_$2$@?._ . :*. & & ',p&$ ;p,sp #?dependents of dr e csasQAdk9L$plhoyeess;@;t9;magssionate <%v b.. ,, .*>-a .. grounds by "&i' +ib9 k the UCO Bankdated 21.09.1999 provides as 6dp:~~ +$;?$$?@'" id9&9). .. g' , r. I' ..T$y$p33L" ,, > 7 , ,' s s+%& -#; .. . calculation formula for income: 9 ,: % Following formula would be followed for arriv

¶15

encashment V) Proceeds of LIC deceased employee liabi'lities are to I) Housing Loan 11) Vehicle Loan 111) Other Loans verifiable

¶16

V) Unmarried daughters above the age of 18 year - 10 per cent for one unmarried daughter and 15 per cent for two unmarried daughters of the amounts derived from (a) (I to V) above under column 'Calculation Formula for Income'

¶17

b) After arriving at the net amount remaining with the family, interest @ I per cent per annum be applied to arrive at monthly income of the family by further taking into consideration: I) Net salary of dependant family members viz, spouse/ so,n/daughter/dependant unmarried brotherldependant unmarried sister

¶18

Monthly family pension

¶19

Income for family from any other sources like rent etc.

¶20

IV) Income from agricultural property/family business etc.

¶21

The dependant applicant for appointment on compassionate ground has to furnish an affidavit duly sworn in before the Metropolitan Magistrate/lst Class Magistrate/Notary Public as per format of the Bank."

¶22

: p <~*t$ b for co applied erron future ,?&+ of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has two unmarried daugh,tesfleas and 8 years and 10% &" .pl$kry : & . - for one unmarrie.d-daughter and 15% p ' **<~t$ ought to ha$%ben deducted as family liabiliti ,. , , . .. .. not do.nieQ X$iiYg&&: .: the respondents. Learned counsel furt .'' .y that the amount of Rs.4079/has been arrived without the & ,@ aforesaid deduction of $$bm@ijgmarried daughters and the amount is only that the petitioner, w 8th two daughters and would have to b considered for co ment and mathematical formula applied erron t income of 60% is no d B answer to a person b !&ionate appointment to tide over future ysrbitted by the petitioner, SPW ,A -+ however, the same wa '"b nk vide its letter dated 24.10.2000 and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentbank submits that the Division Bench of this court in UCO Bank Versus Devi Kishan Hariian reported in 2017 (I) WLC (Rai.) (UC] Ill has approved that appointment cannot be conferred in consideration to parameters of the scheme. Learned counsel relies on the judgment ,?&+ of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in

¶24

the case of State Bank of India & Another versus Somvir Sinqh reported in 2007 (4) SCC 778 wherein it was held that there is no scope of division for applying discretion in any manner by the office of the bank while implementing the scheme. Learned counsel relies on The State Bank of India & Others Versus Sh. Kuldeep Kalla 2013 (3) WLC (Rai.) 363 to submit that the discretionary power is available with the Bank which is required to

¶25

person to be given nt. In the present case too, the petit right to be offered compassionate appo urse. However, when the decision taken to pointmen't order is legal .and in conformity r not, can be examined by this court. In the pre ion of the income of the petitioner from t ich have been made available to her is fou he calculation formula for income to be requ or arriving at financial .' ii :z"~- m "f?2 wi3%e. wmwv B position of the inome~~~~~~~,#~~qlysI+a~~d down in the scheme. %, 9 '. -& %. 1 From perusal of the formula (supra), it is apparent that deduction is required to be made for unmarried daughters. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that such deduction was not made and the case of the petitioner solely because the daughters were of not above the age of I8 years, is found to be erroneous. The formula specifically mentions unmarried daughters above the age of I8 years, 10% for one unmarried daughter and 15O/0 for the two unmarried daughters. Thus, if there are two

¶26

unmarried daughters, benefit has to be given, the criteria of age of 18 years is only advisory and cannot be treated as a strict formula for denying the deduction. The unmarried daughter whether of age of 11 years, 8 years or 18 years would remain as unmarried daughter. No distinction can be drawn between the two. Death is an incident which is most certain as well as most uncertain. Uncertain as nobody knows the time when person may

¶27

t of the scheme has to of the scheme has to f 18 years or above has to be applied en made, the denial of

¶28

get them married in t of the scheme has to of the scheme has to be understood mere f 18 years or above would not deny suc has to be applied accordi.ngly. Since the en made, the denial of compassionate appoint 8. The question, howe hat relief can be given to the petitioner after a 9. Granting appoi ing hardship to the respondent-bank to suffer on account of the proc . This is an old case which has come up before the, court after 20 years. The principles laid down in the legal maxim have to be followed.

¶29

In view thereof, while holding the action of the respondents in denying compassionate appointment is illegal and unjustified, this court modifies the relief to the extent of granting lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/in lieu of denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month henceforth, failing which

¶30

the same shall carry interest at the rate of prevailing interest from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 4.12.2000.

¶31

However, learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that as per the scheme, the petitioner was entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in 2000. This Court leaves it open for the Bank that if it wants to follow the scheme and pay the petitioner Rs.1,00,000/-, the same shall be payable to her from the date of

¶32

the petitioner within a month from tod,av.

¶33

The Bank shal

¶34

10 & 11 above.

¶35

A cost of Rs.25,O

¶36

wrongful denial of c

¶37

All pending applic

Smt Manju Bala Sharma v. Uco Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manju Bala Sharma v. Uco Bank and Ors.

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

Mukesh Chand Sharma Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Vipin Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Rajasthan

Alok Tank S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Tank Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Usha Gupta Wife of Dr. Dilip Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Rajasthan

St. Soldier Public School Jaip Vs Pn Soman

Bharat Lal Gurjar Son of Shri Gangaram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan