Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Singh Bisht, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of Canara Bank refusing him employment on compassionate grounds or the lumpsum exgratia amount under the 2005 Scheme. The petitioner's father, Mohan K. Singh Bisht, was an Armed Guard at the bank's Currency Chest, Fort branch, and died on 14 July 2001 due to a massive cardiac arrest while on duty. The widow applied for compassionate appointment for the petitioner on 23 August 2001, followed by another letter on 24 December 2001, and the petitioner submitted a formal application on 20 December 2001, which was received and endorsed by the Senior Manager on 29 December 2001 recommending sympathetic consideration. Despite this, the bank took no decision for a substantial period. The bank later introduced a 2005 Scheme offering lumpsum exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment. The petitioner sought either compassionate appointment or the exgratia amount. The court observed that the application was made in time but the bank's treatment of the petitioner lacked human sensitivity. The court directed the bank to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the 2005 Scheme and, if not eligible, to grant the lumpsum exgratia payment. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay in Processing - The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was made in time but the bank delayed processing for years, lacking human sensitivity - The court held that the bank's conduct was unreasonable and directed consideration of the application for compassionate appointment or exgratia payment as per the 2005 Scheme (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment or lumpsum exgratia payment under the 2005 Scheme, and whether the respondent bank's refusal was justified.
Final Decision
The court directed the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the 2005 Scheme and, if not eligible, to grant the lumpsum exgratia payment. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Scheme for compassionate appointment
- lumpsum exgratia payment
- delay in processing application
- human sensitivity
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
