1. Petitioner, widow of late Ashok Kumar Srivastava, who was serving as Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India and was at the relevant time, posted at Pratapgarh, has preferred this petition for the relief of quashing the impugned order contained in the communication dated 12.7.2001 and also for the relief of mandamus to the respondents to employ the petitioner in Class III service of the State Bank of India.

2. The brief facts, which bear on the controversy involved in this petition are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, who held the post of Assistant Manager in the Bank was, at the relevant time, posted at Pratapgarh met with a road accident and succumbed to his injuries on 26.12.1999. The deceased was survived by his widow and three daughters. It is stated that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in Class 3 cadre commensurate to her educational qualification. The application moved for compassionate appointment did not find favour with the competent authority who rejected the same by means of the order contained in communication dated 12.7.2001. It is this order, which is the causative factor for institution of the present petition. Detailed order passed for declining the prayer for compassionate appointment has been annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure-C.A. 2. From a perusal of the order dated 14.6.2001, it would transpire that after furnishing details about the fiscal condition of the family, it has been spelt out that 'indigent circumstances do not exist in the family'.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in vindication of his stand that the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, submitted that the authorities were not justified in reckoning into consideration the funds received by family on account of death from employer including the pension, etc. as the basis for opining that the family was not in financial straits and consequently, for declining the prayer for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the order spells out no reason and merely enumerates details about the movable and immovable properties of the deceased. It is further submitted that the order does not spell out any objective consideration of the various factors including marriage of three unmarried daughters of the deceased and as such, proceeds the submission, the order has been passed in utter disregard of the underlying object of compassionate appointment. The learned counsel representing the respondent Bank, on the other hand, resisted the claim of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. He further submitted that mere death furnishes no foundation for automatic appointment and that other attendant factors such as financial condition of the family have also to be taken into account and in the instant case, the Bank scanned the case of the petitioner in all its pros and cons and boiled down to the opinion that there existed no indigent circumstances so as to warrant compassionate appointment.

4. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have acquaintance with the purpose behind providing compassionate appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family and thus there should be imperativeness in providing such appointment in order to redeem the family in distress. It is in the light of the above general principle that I am prompted to scan the relevant provision which has been pressed into service by the Bank authorities to decline compassionate appointment :

"10. Financial condition of the family.--Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying-in-harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family is, therefore, an important criterion for deciding the proposals for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account for determining the financial condition of the family :

(i) family pension ;

(ii) gratuity amount received ;

(iii) employee's/employer's contribution to Provident Fund ;

(iv) any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund ;

(v) proceeds of LIC policies and other investments of the deceased employee ;

(vi) income of family from other sources ;

(vii) income of other family members from employment or other sources ;

(viii) size of the family and verifiable liabilities, if any."

Decisions have been copiously cited from both sides in vindication of their respective contentions. In the first place, I propose to examine the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Sri Vipin Sinha, appearing for the respondent Bank has placed credence on as many as 21 cases to hammer home the point and in order to avoid swelling the judgment, I would deal with so much precedents as are necessary for the Just adjudication of the controversy involved in this petition. The learned counsel placed reliance on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, JT 1994 (3) SC 525. The quintessence of what has been held in this decision by the Apex Court is that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. It has been further held by the Apex Court that in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet. The second case relied upon by the learned counsel is Director Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998 (3) AWC 1772 (SC) : 1998 (5) SCC 192. The ratio flowing from this case is that a person cannot insist upon a particular post. The appointment on Class 4 could be offered if Class 3 post is not available. This case echoed the self-same ratio and principles as prescribed in Nagpal's case. The third case relied upon by the learned counsel is Kaushal Kumar Shukla v. CM.. P. N. B. and Anr., 20O1 (2) AWC 1508 (LB) : 2O01 (2) ESC 1342 (All). In this case, the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that the family had sufficient means and there was no crisis of livelihood. The fourth case taken in aid of the case of the Bank is S. B. I. and Anr. v. Ram Piyarey, 2000 (2) ESC 876 (All). In this case also, the appointment was denied on ground that financial condition of the family of the deceased was sound and there was no crisis to tide over. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr., JT 1996 (2) SC 542, the Apex Court has held that compassionate employment is a vested right which could be exercised any time in future but it cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of time and after the crisis in the family is over. In Sanjeev Kumar Dubey v. D.I.O.S. Etawah and Ors., 2000 (1) AWC 857 : 2000 (1) ESC 635, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that financial status of the family, qualification and suitability are the relevant factors to be taken into consideration. The Apex Court in this case based its decision on the ratio flowing from Nagpal's case. In Jadwati Devi v. State Bank of India and Ors. 1999 (3) AWC 2048, the decision has been rendered based on the ratio flowing from Nagpal's case that the financial condition of the family of the deceased was sound and thus appointment was denied. The other cases cited by the learned counsel are Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332 ; State of H. P. and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar, 2001 (9) SCC 174 ; Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr., JT 1995 (9) SC 131 ; Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India and Ors., 1989 (4) SCC 468 ; Dhiraj Kumar Dixit v. G.M. (P.) UCO Bank.

Calcutta and Ors., 2002 (4) AWC 2970 : JT 2002 (3) SC ; Kishore Singh v. State Bank of India, Kanpur and Ors., 1999 (3) AWC 2620 : 2000 (1) Bank CLR 220 (All) and Union Of India v. Joginder Sharma., 2002 (8) SCC 65. Besides the above cases, decisions rendered in Special Appeal No. 447 of 1999, Jaddawati Devi and Anr. v. State Bank of India and Ors. ; Civil Misc. W. P. No. 34547 of 2000. Pushpendra Arora v. S.B.I, and Ors. ; Civil Misc. W. P. No. 16616 of 2001, Anand Kumar v. Chairman, S.B.I.. (HC) (AP) ; Appeal No. 1330 of 2001, Abeeda Begum and Anr. v. Chairman S.B.I, and Ors. ; Civil Misc. W. P. No. 5659 of 2000, Anurag Yadav v. C.G.M. S.B.I, and Ors. and Civil Misc. W. P. No. 43260 of 2000. Sunder Singh v. C.G.M. S.B.I. and Ors., have also been called in aid by the learned counsel to enforce his contention that the fiscal condition of the petitioner was too sound to warrant the need of any appointment.

5. The distillate of the above decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank is that every appointment has to be made on merits ; that compassionate appointment could not be made or claimed as a matter of right but in case, scheme or the rule prescribes such conditions or postulates as to warrant compassionate appointment, it could be made to tide over sudden crisis befalling the family taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased to the effect that it will not jeopardise the livelihood and existence of the family.

6. In Krishna Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., 1990 (4) SLR 716 (SC), the Apex Court observed that only the ratio decidendi and not the reason in support of decision having the force of law. In another case in Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Thukral Anjali Deo Kumar, 1989 (2) SLR 15 (SC), the Apex Court explained that observation in a judgment has to be understood in the context of the facts of that particular case. The sheet-anchor case amongst all the cases relied upon by the learned counsel is Nagpal's case (supra). The observation of the Apex Court in the said case is borne of the direction of the High Court to the Government to offer compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee-a class I officer, to a Class I or Class II post. Here in the Instant case, the petitioner applied for appointment and it was declined considering the lump-sum amount received by the petitioner from employer on various counts and also having regard to certain private investments made by the deceased during his life time which the family of the deceased received. Besides, It does not appear to be the intendment of the said decision to arrive at a subjective satisfaction of sound fiscal status on the basis of lump-sum amount and certain Investments made by the deceased In his life time. The question that begs consideration is whether mere receiving certain amount from employer after death of the bread earner and some other lump sum amount paid to the family would suffice vis-a-vis the factors that there are daughters of marriageable age to be married off ; that there remains or not any perennial permanent source of income to keep the pot boiling in the face of there being no source of income from employment of any of the members of the deceased family ; and that how long the family will be able to sustain on whatever means left behind by the deceased. All these aspects have not been traversed upon nor discussed in the impugned order and the authorities after enumerating details of sources of income, converged to the conclusion that the family had enough means to sustain itself. By the impugned order, it appears that the Bank considered the notional income of the family of the deceased in declining appointment to the petitioner and it does not appear to be the principle and ratio of any of the decisions cited by the counsel. No doubt, it was permissible for the Bank to have taken into reckoning the financial status of the family of the deceased but not in the manner as has been done in the instant case. It is settled position in law that family benefit scheme cannot in any way be equated with compassionate appointment and in Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., 2000 (3) ESC 1618 (SC), the Apex Court embodied in words the agony experienced by a family of the deceased in observing that the sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by the family by lump sum amount provided to it. The Apex Court further observed that the feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and at that juncture, if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. In the last, it was observed that it is not that monetary benefit would be replacement of the bread earner but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation. It would thus appear that the lump sum amount received by the family of the deceased cannot be a substitute for employment to be offered to any eligible member of the family of the deceased in order to keep the pot of family boiling after the death of the sole bread earner. In the above context, I proceed to deal with tenability of the impugned order. The impugned recommendation after enumerating details of the lump sum amount paid in the aftermath of the death of the deceased, goes to quip by way of remark as under :

"In view of the Central Office guidelines/Supreme Court Judgment vis-a-vis the above financial position of the family, we observe that indigent circumstances do not exist in the family. We, therefore, recommend that request of Smt. Kanti Srivastava for her compassionate appointment in the Bank may please be declined. We shall advise the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow to advise Smt. Srivastava suitably and treat the matter as closed."

From a perusal of the above recommendation on which is affixed the laconic word 'approved' by way of order by the competent authority, it appears to me that the authorities have skimmed the surface of ratio flowing from various decisions and have not grasped the pivotal underlying object of the scheme of compassionate appointment. The authorities concerned have not assigned any reason for accepting recommendation, the necessary corollary whereof is that the competent authority has not applied its mind on the recommendations whether the details furnished by the recommending authority were valid to warrant denial of appointment of compassionate ground and whether the authority concerned was perspicacious enough to assess the consequence of denial of appointment to the bereaved family in the long run. The object of speaking order and observance of principles of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair-play in action. In the present case, the competent authority merely contended itself by affixing laconic word 'approved' on the recommendations and has not assigned any reason and in the circumstances, the denial of appointment by the competent authority by way of laconic word 'approved' does not have the complexion of a valid order passed after considering all the ramifications of the matter with due regard to the underlying object of the compassionate appointment. The impugned order does not give reason nor is there any application of mind into the relevant factors or any discussion on most material and vital points. The authorities have not bestowed laborious thoughts upon the factors that the deceased was survived by three minor daughters and they have not also given thought to the fact whether the family, in the circumstances, would require any permanent source of income to sustain itself after having lost its sole bread earner to keep the pot of the family boiling.

7. In the above perspective, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order declining compassionate appointment to the petitioner is accordingly quashed attended with the direction to the respondent Bank authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of true intendment of the scheme.