9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 581 - SC - Indian LawsScheme of appointment of dependents of deceased employees - Held that - Allow the appeal filed by the appellant the Bank in this case. The High Court erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 04.08.2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of deceased is Rs.5855/- only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by Late Shri. Sukhbir Inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water.
Issues Involved:
1. Application of compassionate appointment scheme. 2. Financial condition assessment of the deceased employee's family. 3. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court in compassionate appointment cases. 4. Applicability of the compassionate appointment scheme formulated in 2005 to an application made in 2000. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Compassionate Appointment Scheme: The Government of India issued guidelines on 07.08.1996 regarding the scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds, based on the observations in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. The Indian Banks Association later suggested amendments to this scheme. The appellant Bank framed its scheme for compassionate appointments, which was approved on 16.11.1996. The respondent, widow of a deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment on 05.02.2000, which was declined by the Bank's competent authority on 07.01.2002. The High Court ordered reconsideration, but the Bank again declined the request on 03.04.2004. The High Court then allowed the respondent's writ petition on 20.09.2005, stating that the financial benefits provided were insufficient for the family's maintenance. 2. Financial Condition Assessment: The Bank's scheme stipulated that compassionate appointments apply only when the deceased has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The financial condition of the family included: - Terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 4,57,607/-. - Monthly family pension of Rs. 2055/-. - Monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme. - Total monthly income of Rs. 5855/-. The High Court's view that the financial benefits were insufficient was contested by the appellant Bank, emphasizing that the terminal benefits and monthly income should be considered integral to the family's financial security. 3. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the High Court: The appellant Bank argued that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not act as a Court of appeal. The High Court's interference with the findings of the competent authority was deemed inappropriate unless there was evidence of mala fides or perversity. The Bank cited precedents where the Court held that judicial review should not disturb the findings of fact by competent authorities unless in cases of clear error or mala fides. 4. Applicability of the 2005 Scheme: The respondent's application for compassionate appointment was made in 2000, but the High Court applied the scheme formulated in 2005. The appellant Bank contended that the dispute arising in 2000 should not be decided based on a scheme that came into effect much later. The financial condition of the family, assessed under the 2000 scheme, did not meet the criteria for penury as required for compassionate appointment. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the appellant Bank, setting aside the High Court's orders. The Court upheld the Bank's decision, noting that the financial condition of the respondent's family did not warrant compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions made for families left in penury and without means of livelihood, which was not the case here. The application of the 2005 scheme to a 2000 application was also deemed inappropriate. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were ordered.
|
