JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Rashmikant Padia, husband of the petitioner died in road accident while on duty. He was working as a Clerk with the respondent bank. After his death, it is stated that he was involved in a serious act which the bank called swindling away of a sizeable amount of Rs. 11,90,940/-. On his death, his widow, the present petitioner applied to the respondent bank for appointing her eldest son Ronak aged 21 for being appointed in the service of the respondent bank on compassionate ground. Her application was rejected on 1.9.2001 by the respondent bank. Therefore, she had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.10919 of 2001. The said petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: D.H.Waghela, J) on 15.4.2002. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Learned Counsel Shri Sahni for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impugned order of rejection of her application passed by the respondent bank was absolutely non-speaking order. Under the circular, the Bank Authority was required to examine her application judiciously and sympathetically but with one line order, her application was mechanically rejected. He, therefore, submitted that the Learned Single Judge should have allowed the petition and should have sent the matter back to the Authority for offering explanation after affording an opportunity of hearing. This submission of Mr.Sahni cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it was not an order of penalty. The respondent bank was not supposed to write a judgment like the Court while deciding an application on that ground. On the material available with the bank, if it has come to the conclusion that the application cannot be granted then they can reject it by brief order.
3. Mr. Sahni then submitted that no other person was departmentally dealt with in the case of swindling away the amount of Rs. 11,90,940/- except the deceased husband of the petitioner who was merely a Clerk and that too after his death. There is no substance in this submission. It is not necessary that others should also be departmentally proceeded alongwith the deceased.
4. From the judgement of the Learned Single Judge, it is clear that the Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that mere eligibility criteria being dependant of a deceased person is not sufficient. It will not give any right to anyone to claim an appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. Compassionate appointment is to be made only in cases when the person dies in harness leaving behind his family members hand to mouth. That is not the case here. It is an admitted fact that the widow got Rs.15 lakhs from L.I.C. on the death of her husband out of which she has already put an amount of Rs.8.55 lakhs as Fixed Deposit. She can maintain from the interest income of it. From the order of the Learned Single Judge, it appears that she had more than one house. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned judgement and order passed by the Learned Single Judge is such which calls for interference by this Court in Letters Patent.
5. It is true that in the order, the Learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner has not filed any Motor Accident Claim Petition but nothing much comes out of it. Suffice it to say, that when the Learned Single Judge has refused to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, then certainly this Court will not interfere with such discretionary orders in Letters Patent Appeal. In view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is dismissed.