LI Network
Published on: 2 August 2023 at 13:50 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a Writ Petition requesting compassionate appointment 26 years after the death of the employee.
In its ruling, the Court noted that any financial crisis resulting from the petitioner’s mother’s demise would have likely been resolved over time, and there was no current urgency to provide economic assistance to the family.
Justice J.J. Munir, presiding over the case, highlighted the significant time elapsed since the petitioner’s mother passed away. Considering that life goes on, the Court inferred that the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner’s family after the untimely death of his mother would have been managed by the petitioner over the years. Hence, there was no existing emergency that required the Court’s intervention to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment.
Advocate Sharad Tandon represented the petitioner, and Advocate Anadi Krishna Narayana represented the respondent.
The Writ Petition challenged a decision made by the Assistant General Manager and the Regional Head of the Bank of Baroda (Bank), which had rejected the petitioner’s application seeking a compassionate appointment in place of his late mother.
The petitioner’s mother served as a Cashier-cum-Clerk in the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank (BCB), which later merged with the Bank of Baroda in 1999.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s mother worked for the BCB, a separate entity, and she passed away before the bank’s merger in 1999.
The petitioner approached the Bank shortly after completing his B.Com. examination but did not take any legal action to assert his rights until 2022. While acknowledging the belated claim, the Court still directed the Bank to review the petitioner’s case.
The Court recognized that the petitioner had approached the Bank soon after finishing his B.Com. examination but pointed out that he waited for a long time before initiating any legal action to enforce his rights, if any.
The petitioner pursued the matter with the Bank from 2007 until 2022, when he finally filed a writ petition before the Court seeking redress.
Prior to 2022, the petitioner had not approached any judicial forum to address his rights.
