Claim For Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted 26 Years After Employee's Death: Allahabad HC Dismisses Petition
|The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking compassionate appointment 26 years after the death of the employee. The Court noted that any financial crisis that emanated from the death of Petitioner's mother would have been tided over and that there was no existing exigency to bail out the family in economic distress now.
The Bench of Justice J.J. Munir noted, “Apart from this feature of the matter, what is most important is that 26 years have indeed elapsed since the petitioner's mother passed away. During this long passage of time, as life goes on, it is a legitimate inference to draw that the financial crisis emanating from the petitioner's mother's untimely demise would have been tided over by the petitioner, in whatsoever way it was. There is, therefore, no existing exigency to bail out the family in economic distress now in aid of which this Court may issue a mandamus to consider the petitioner's case”.
Advocate Sharad Tandon appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Anadi Krishna Narayana appeared for the Respondent.
A Writ Petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Assistant General Manager and the Regional Head of the Bank of Baroda (Bank), whereby the Bank rejected the Petitioner's application seeking a compassionate appointment in his mother's stead. The Petitioner’s mother was a Cashier-cum-Clerk in the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank (BCB), which subsequently merged with the Bank of Baroda in 1999.
The Court noted that the petitioner's mother was an employee of the BCB, which was a separate entity, and she died before its merger with the Bank in the year 1999. The Petitioner approached the Bank soon after he passed his B.Com. examination, but he did not take any legal action to enforce his rights until 2022. The Court was mindful of the fact that the claim was highly belated, but still directed the Bank to consider the Petitioner's case.
“It does appear that the petitioner approached the Bank soon after he passed his B.Com. examination. The fact on which the fate of this case would turn is that the petitioner waited too long in commencing any kind of action to enforce his rights, if these were there. He pursued the matter with the Bank since the year 2007 right up to the year 2022, when for the first time, he instituted a writ petition before this Court. Prior to the year 2022, the petitioner did not bring any kind of action before any judicial forum to enforce his rights”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Avnish Tandon v Assistant General Manager (2023:AHC:139231)