LUCKNOW Observing that the word ‘compassion’ cannot be considered in a vacuum, as it denotes sympathy, kindness and a soft feeling of human sentiment, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has quashed a one-line order passed by Punjab National Bank (PNB) rejecting the compassionate appointment claim of a deceased employee’s son.
The court also observed that the objective of the 1974 Rules is to provide immediate financial succour to the family of a deceased government servant and the word ‘compassion’ is of far-reaching consequence.
Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed the judgement recently while allowing a petition filed by one Abhishek Jaiswal. The petitioner had challenged an order passed by the PNB rejectiing his claim for compassionate appointment.
As per the case, the petitioner’s father Keshav Ram Jaiswal, a PNB employee, died in harness in August 2016. His wife initially submitted an application for the compassionate appointment of her son (the petitioner) in August 2018. At that point in time, the petitioner had passed his Intermediate examination.
On August 27, 2018, the bank responded and requested that the family complete the necessary formalities, which they did. In the mean time, the office was relocated; accordingly, the bank officers requested that a new application be submitted, which was submitted in January 2021. However, the bank rejected the claim by passing an order on September 19, 2023. Challenging this order, the petitioner moved the HC.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that although the initial application might not have been “happily worded”, as it expressed a desire for appointment after the son completed his graduation, it was nevertheless a valid claim made within the limitation period. He also challenged the one-line rejection order passed by the bank authorities.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner’s counsel submitted that although the initial application might not have been “happily worded”, as it expressed a desire for appointment after the son completed his graduation, it was nevertheless a valid claim made within the limitation period. He also challenged the one-line rejection order passed by the bank authorities.
{{/usCountry}}On the other hand, respondent bank counsel contended that the 2018 letter sent by the petitioner’s mother was effectively a request for a “future appointment”, which was impermissible.
The court said it failed to understand that if at the time of issuing the letter (in August 2018), the bank had considered the letter of claim, what restrained them from proceeding for the appointment of the petitioner. It further took strong exception to the bank’s approach of passing the impugned order in one line without assigning any reason.
The court found that the initial application of 2018 was well within the limitation period, and the bank had itself acted upon it by asking for formalities to be completed. It added that the demand for a fresh application in 2021 did not invalidate the original claim.
Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order dated September 19, 2023, and the matter was remitted back to the chief manager of the central office of the bank in Sitapur, with a direction to decide the matter afresh within 8 weeks.