JUDGMENT
Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner herein seeking issuance of directions to the respondent bank for payment of compensation to the petitioner for causing harassment and mental torture to her for 13 years and for payment of litigation expenses to her to the tune of Rs. 55,000, and for appointment of the younger son of the petitioner, Sh. Rakesh Namdev, on compassionate grounds with the respondent bank.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Jai Prakash Namdev, son of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent bank as a peon at its Bhopal office on a temporary basis, was confirmed in service on 2.8.1993, and he continued to work with the respondent bank till September, 1994. On 10.10.1994, a police complaint was lodged stating that Sh. Namdev was missing and a case was registered. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 161/2007 wherein vide order dated 5.2.2007, the respondent bank was directed to pay the petitioner, gratuity, provident fund and pay as admissible along with interest in respect of Sh. Namdev and it was further directed that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to her younger son Sh. Rakesh Namdev be considered by the respondent bank. Accordingly, the respondent bank forwarded a sum of Rs. 477.60 to the petitioner on account of the provident fund dues of her son, with interest, accrued thereon, under cover of letter dated 17.2.2007 and also disposed of her representation for grant of compassionate appointment to her younger son by rejecting the same on the ground that for the present, there exists no scheme in the bank for providing employment on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent bank, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the family of the petitioner is living in extremely penurious conditions and that the dues paid to her on account of gratuity, provident fund etc. was a very meager sum, and insufficient for the sustenance of the family of the petitioner, which makes the case of her younger son, fit for appointment on compassionate grounds.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent bank submitted at the very outset that there was no scheme for compassionate appointment in the respondent bank and therefore the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to. It was stated that despite the same, in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 5.2.2007, the case of the younger son of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent bank, but since there was no scheme existing, there was no question of appointing him on compassionate grounds.
5. It was further submitted that the very object of granting compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased employee, is to help the family tide over the sudden financial crunch. However, in the present case, it has been 14 years since Sh. Jai Prakash Namdev went missing, and in view of such a long period of time having already passed, no compassionate appointment ought to be given to the younger son of the petitioner.
6. On the question of the quantum of dues paid to the petitioner, it was stated by the respondent bank that Sh. Namdev was not entitled to gratuity as a minimum service of 5 years is required to be eligible for payment of gratuity as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, while Sh. Namdev had put in just about one year in service, and whatever was due to the petitioner on account of provident fund, has been paid to her with interest pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5.2.2007.
7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have perused the documents placed on record. It is now a settled position of law that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a long lapse of time and after the crisis is over. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and has been consistently followed and reiterated time and again by the Apex Court as also by various High Courts.
8. In the present case, the fact remains that 14 long years have elapsed since Sh. Jai Prakash Namdev went missing and therefore the penury and sudden financial crisis caused to the petitioner’s family is deemed to have dissipated. Vide order dated 18th September, 2007, the petitioner was granted permission to place on record the particulars of her son for whom she had sought compassionate appointment and also to place on record the date of filing an application before the respondent bank for compassionate appointment along with copies of the other letters and replies in this regard. A perusal of the annexures therewith shows that the earliest representation made by the petitioner to the respondent bank seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, is dated 23rd February, 2004 There is no document placed on the record to show that the petitioner or any of her family members made any application to the respondent bank, right from the year 1994 till February 2004 seeking appointment for one of the family members on compassionate grounds. There is force in the contention of the counsel for the respondent bank that in view of such a long delay, there is no perversity in its rejection order.
9. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the counsel for the respondent bank that since there is no scheme existing in the respondent bank with regard to compassionate appointment, therefore it could not accede to the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to her younger son. Undoubtedly, appointments on compassionate ground have to be made only in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions, taking into consideration the condition of the family of the deceased. In the absence of any such scheme/instructions/guidelines with regard to compassionate appointment in the respondent bank, no legal right vests in the legal heirs of a deceased employee to claim employment on compassionate grounds. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.B.I. v. Somvir Singh reported as .
10. In so far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to the quantum of dues paid to her is concerned, the explanation offered by the respondent bank in this regard that Sh. Jai Prakash had not completed the statutory minimum period of 5 years so as to be entitled to payment of gratuity, appears to be justified. Though the counsel for the petitioner has disputed the said fact and stated that Sh. Jai Prakash had been working with the respondent bank since the year 1985 and had completed 5 years of service, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate such a claim.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the position of law as discussed above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Since the Court is not inclined to grant the principal relief claimed by the petitioner with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to her younger son, Sh. Rakesh Namdev, the prayer made for payment of compensation for the alleged harassment and mental torture caused to the petitioner by the respondent bank and the claim of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 55,000/- is also rejected. No orders as to costs.