Hon'ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 16th August, 2001 by which after considering the petitioner's application, appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that impugned order has not been passed taking into consideration of financial conditions of the petitioner after death of his father. It is also submitted that almost on identical situation, compassionate appointment was granted to the family of deceased employees.
Learned counsel for the respondents Bank contends that under the guidelines and published norms, the application has been examined carefully. It was found that the pecuniary condition of the family of the deceased is not such which deserves compassionate appointment. Moreover, drawing my attention to the order of compassionate appointment being given to members of another family; he submits that the case is not similar to that of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and I have examined the impugned order and also order passed in another case mentioned in the writ petition with regard to compassionate appointment. It appears that impugned order has been passed after considering carefully the financial condition of the family to which the petitioner is a member. It appears that after inquiry, it was found that this family is receiving family pension of Rs. 3,000/- and odd. Apart from this, this family is also receiving other benefits on which they are getting monthly yield by way of interest. In another case, family pension was only Rs. 800/- and odd. The amount which was receivable by the family at the time of passing of the order, might have increased by passage of time. But that is not material here. Material is whether discrimination is made or not. I find that this case has not been dealt illegally or without application of mind.
Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.