IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD, SITTING AT LUCKNOW

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2024.

Basit Javed. …Petitioner

VERSUS

Canara Bank and Others …Opp. Parties

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page

No.
1. Date and Events

2. Application for Interim Relief

3. Memo of Writ Petition

4. ANNEXURE NO.1
Photocopy of the impugned order
dated 26.09.2023.

5. ANNEXURE NO.2
Photocopy of the “SCHEME FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT”
2014.

6. ANNEXURE NO.3
Photocopy of the death certificate.

7. ANNEXURE NO.4
Photocopy of the letter dated
10.06.2021 as well as letter dated
15.09.2021.

8. ANNEXURE NO.5
Photocopy of the application dated
13.09.2021 as well as
representation dated 28.04.2022.

9. ANNEXURE NO.6
Photocopy of the medical bills.

10. Affidavit

11. Identity Proof

12. Vakalatnama

Place: Lucknow (Aman Shankar)

Date: Advocate
(Counsel for the petitioner)
 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, SITTING AT LUCKNOW

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2024

Basit Javed. …Petitioner

VERSUS

Canara Bank and Others …Opp. Parties

LIST OF DATE & EVENTS

SL. DATE EVENTS

NO.

1. 24.04.2021 The father of the petitioner worked on the

post of Single Window Operator (Class IV
post) at Canara Bank, Regional office-1,
Gomtinagar, Lucknow and he died while
serving as Class IV employee.
2. 10.06.2021 The opposite party no.4 vide letter no.

and LC:HRM:467128:546:2021 apprised Smt.

Saima Javed about the bank’s scheme for
15.09.2021
Compassionate Appointment or Lumpsum
Ex-gratia amount. However, the wife of the
deceased owing to her ill health nominated
her eldest son i.e., petitioner for the job.
3. 13.09.2021 In pursuance of the letter no.

and LC:HRM:467128:546:2021, dated

10.06.2021, the petitioner sent an
28.04.2022
application with all the details of the assets
and liabilities to the opposite party no.3
for appointment on ground of compassion.
However, when no heed was paid to the
application of the petitioner, he again
preferred a representation.
4. 26.09.2023 The opposite party no.3, through
opposite party no.4 in the most arbitrary
and casual manner rejected the application
of the petitioner vide impugned order no.
LC:HRM:467128:656:2023, (as contained
in annexure no.1) stating that the financial
 condition of the dependent family is
satisfactory.
Hence Present Writ Petition

Place: Lucknow
Dated: /02/2024 (AMAN SHANKAR)
Advocate
(Counsel for the petitioner)
Reg. No.7515/2016
Advocate Roll No.B/A 2648
Mob:-+ 91-7004580773
 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, SITTING AT LUCKNOW

C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2024

IN RE:
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2024

(Writ Petition Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of

India)

Basit Javed, aged about 25 years, S/o Late Sayed Mohd.

Javed Akhter, R/o 436/045, Pasand Bagh, Amberganj,
Lucknow.

…Petitioner

VERSUS

1.Canara Bank, Regional Office-1, Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar,

Lucknow-226010.

2.MD & CEO’s Secretariat, Head Office

112, J C Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.

3.Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, HRM Section, Circle

Office, Lucknow.

4.Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, HRM Section, Zonal

Office, Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow.

5.Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Office-1,

Lucknow.

…Opposite Parties
 APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF

The applicant above named most respectfully submits

as under:-

For the facts, circumstances and grounds stated in the

accompanying writ petition duly supported by an affidavit, it
is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the
order dated 26.09.2023 passed by opposite party no.3, the
true copy of which is contained as Annexure No.1 to this
writ petition and may further be pleased to issue an ad-
interim mandamus, directing the opposite party no.2 to
provide the job on the post as it may deem fit according to the
qualification and education of the petitioner under the “Scheme of
Compassionate Appointment, 2014” during pendency of the
instant Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.

Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case, may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.

Place: Lucknow
Dated: /02/2024 (AMAN SHANKAR)
Advocate
Counsel for the petitioners
Reg. No.7515/2016
Advocate Roll No.B/A 2648
Mob:-+ 91-7004580773
 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, SITTING AT LUCKNOW

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2024

Basit Javed, aged about 25 years, S/o Late Sayed Mohd.

Javed Akhter, R/o 436/045, Pasand Bagh, Amberganj,
Lucknow.

…Petitioner

VERSUS

1.Canara Bank, Regional Office-1, Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar,

Lucknow-226010.

2.MD & CEO’s Secretariat, Head Office

112, J C Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.

3.Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, HRM Section, Circle

Office, Lucknow.

4.Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, HRM Section, Zonal

Office, Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow.

5.Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Office-1,

Lucknow.

…Opposite Parties
 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice

And his other Companion Judges
of the aforesaid Court.

The petitioner named above most respectfully begs to

submit as under:-

1. That the petitioner declare that he has not filed any writ
petition before this Hon'ble Court here at Lucknow or at
Allahabad regarding the present relief sought by the
petitioner in this writ petition.

2. That in the best knowledge of the petitioner, neither any

caveat has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties, nor
any notice been served upon the petitioner till date
regarding the present subject matter.

3. That by means of the present Writ Petition, the

petitioner is questioning the penetrability of the illegal
and arbitrary impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed
by the opposite party no.3, through opposite party
no.4 by means of which, the application for
compassionate appointment under the “Scheme of
Compassionate Appointment, 2014” dated 13.09.2021
preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the
opposite party no.3, in the most arbitrary and illegal
manner and also without giving him an opportunity of fair
hearing, which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
 Inter-alia seeking relief in the nature of Certiorari
by quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed
by the opposite party no.3 in as much as issue a writ in
the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party
no.2 to appoint the petitioner in the service in light of the
facts adumbrated here under this Writ Petition. Photocopy of
the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 is being annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this writ petition.

4. That it is relevant to mention here that the appointment on

the basis of compassion in the Respondent bank is governed
by the “SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT”
effective from 05/08/2014. It is also submitted here that the
petitioner is well qualified to be appointed under this
scheme. Photocopy of the “SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT” 2014 is being annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE NO.2 to this writ petition.

5. That now the petitioner proceeds to adumbrate the facts of

the case in-extenso in order to understand the controversy
involved in the present writ petition.

6. That the petitioner is the son of Late Sri Sayed Mohd. Jawed
Akhter, S/o Late Sri Syed Mohd. Nazim, who died on
24.04.2021 due to Covid-19. It is also submitted that the
father of the petitioner worked on the post of Single Window
Operator (Class IV post) at Canara Bank, Regional office-1,
Gomtinagar, Lucknow and he died on 24.04.2021 while
serving as Class IV employee. Photocopy of the death
certificate is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE NO.3
to this writ petition.

7. That the father of the petitioner died leaving behind his

ailing wife, Smt. Saima Javed, two sons and an unmarried
daughter, namely Basit Javed (petitioner), Haris Javed
(pursuing B.tech) and Hamna Javed (B.com) respectively. It
 is further submitted that the deceased was the only
breadwinner of his entire family and after his demise the
family is suffering from huge financial crisis.

8. That the opposite party no.4 vide letter no.

LC:HRM:467128:546:2021 dated 10.06.2021 apprised Smt.
Saima Javed about the bank’s scheme for Compassionate
Appointment or Lumpsum Ex-gratia amount. However, the
wife of the deceased owing to her ill health nominated her
eldest son i.e., petitioner for the job vide letter dated
15.09.2021. Photocopy of the letter dated 10.06.2021 as
well as letter dated 15.09.2021 are being collectively
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE NO.4 to this writ petition.

9. That in pursuance of the letter no.

LC:HRM:467128:546:2021, dated 10.06.2021, the
petitioner sent an application dated 13.09.2021 with all the
details of the assets and liabilities to the opposite party
no.3 for appointment on ground of compassion. However,
when no heed was paid to the application of the petitioner,
he again preferred a representation dated 28.04.2022.
Photocopy of the application dated 13.09.2021 as well as
representation dated 28.04.2022 are collectively being
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE NO.5 to this writ petition.

10. That the opposite party no.3, through opposite party

no.4 in the most arbitrary and casual manner rejected the
application of the petitioner vide impugned order no.
LC:HRM:467128:656:2023, dated 26.09.2023 (as contained
in annexure no.1) stating that the financial condition of the
dependent family is satisfactory.

11. That it is noteworthy to mention here that the opposite

parties failed to provide rightful appointment to the
petitioner.

12. That it is pertinent to mention at this piquant stage that the

 scheme for compassionate appointment was incorporated
for the family of the deceased employees to tide over the
sudden crisis due to the death of the employee. However,
the opposite party no.3 took 2 long years in rejecting the
claim of the petitioner, that too, in the most arbitrary and
casual manner without even giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner resulting in the violation of the
principle of Natural Justice. As such, the impugned order
dated 26.09.2023 not only violated the principle of Natural
Justice but is also violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

13. That in catena of judgments it is well settled that

compassionate appointment must be decided within 6
months and authorities must consider and decide such
applications for appointment on compassionate ground at
the earliest but it is painful to see that the opposite parties,
which should behave like model employer, has been
negating the right of the petitioner though the application
was made on 13.09.2021. His valuable right more than 3
years have been wasted only by the opposite parties.

14. That it would not be out of place to mention here that the
case of the petitioner is not an ordinary case because the
death of the father of the petitioner occurred in an extra
ordinary circumstance, i.e., due to Covid-19 pandemic. It is
also submitted that the dependent family had to spend a
hefty amount on the treatment of the deceased. Photocopy
of the medical bills is being annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE NO.6 to this writ petition.

15. That now the petitioner is being aggrieved and having no

any other alternative and efficacious remedy to the
Petitioner except to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court under article 226 of the Constitution of
India for redressal of his grievance on the following amongst
other grounds:-
 GROUNDS

A. Because, the impugned order is quite arbitrary and was

passed in a casual manner.

B. Because, the impugned order passed by opposite party

no.3 without application of mind and also in the
ignorance of the very purpose of the “Scheme of
Compassionate Appointment, 2014” as amended from time
to time which specifically provides for the employment of
the deceased family member on ground of compassion.

C. Because, the philosophy behind giving the compassionate

appointment is just to help the dependents of deceased
employee in harness to get over the immediate crisis due to
loss of sole bread earner on whom the claimant of the
compassionate appointment was dependent for livelihood.

D. Because, it is well settled that compassionate appointment

must be decided within 6 months and authorities must
consider and decide such applications for appointment on
compassionate ground at the earliest but in the present case
the opposite parties are contra legem in deciding the
appointment of the petitioner.

E. Because, the law on the subject matter of compassionate

appointment is no longer res integra. The claim for
compassionate appointment is on the premise that such
person or his family were dependents on the earning of the
deceased employee. This claim is considered reasonable,
though otherwise it could be violative of Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. The reason being that the family
suffers a sudden crisis on the death of the employee, who
had served the institution and died in service and thus by
denying a valuable right for more than 3 years the opposite
parties have acted in violation of rules of Service
Jurisprudence.

F. Because, the opposite party no.3 in the most arbitrary

and casual manner rejected the application of the petitioner
vide impugned order no. LC:HRM:467128:656:2023, dated
 26.09.2023 (as contained in annexure no.1) stating that the
financial condition of the dependent family is satisfactory.

G. Because, the opposite parties failed to provide rightful

appointment to the petitioner.

H. Because, the petitioner is the only legal claimant for

compassionate appointment in place of his late father.

I. Because, the petitioner has requisite qualifications for

compassionate appointment on any class IV post in the
respondent bank under dying in harness.

J. Because, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by

2015 (7) SCC 412: Canara Bank and Anr. vs. M.
Mahesh Kumar, where it was held that grant of family
pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated
as an substitute for providing employment assistance.

K. Because, the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 is illegal in

view of the fact that the opposite parties neither showed any
compassion for petitioner who lost his father nor considered
undue hardship faced by dependent family.

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed

that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by

quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by
the opposite party no.3 (as contained in annexure
no.1), in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to
appoint the petitioner in the service under the “Scheme of
Compassionate Appointment, 2014”.

(iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner.

Place: Lucknow
Dated: /02/2024 (AMAN SHANKAR)
Advocate
Counsel for the petitioner
Reg. No.7515/2016
Advocate Roll No.B/A 2648
Mob:-+ 91-7004580773
 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, SITTING AT LUCKNOW
WRIT A NO. OF 2024

(Writ Petition Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India)

Basit Javed, aged about 25 years, S/o Late Sayed Mohd.

Javed Akhter, R/o 436/045, Pasand Bagh, Amberganj,
Lucknow.

…Petitioner

VERSUS

1.Canara Bank, Regional Office-1, Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar,

Lucknow-226010.

2.MD & CEO’s Secretariat, Head Office

112, J C Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.

3.Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, HRM Section, Circle

Office, Lucknow.

4.Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, HRM Section, Zonal

Office, Vipin Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow.

5.Manager/Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Office-1,

Lucknow.

…Opposite Parties

AFFIDAVIT

I, Basit Javed, aged about 25 years, S/o Late Sayed

Mohd. Javed Akhter, R/o 436/045, Pasand Bagh, Amberganj,
Lucknow, Religion-Muslim, Qualification- B.tech, Profession-
Unemployed the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as under:-

1. That the deponent is petitioner himself in the above noted

writ petition and as such, he is fully conversant with the
facts deposed here under.

2. That the contents of para no. 1 to 14 are true to my

personal knowledge and para 15 is based on the legal
advice given to me.

3. That the annexure No. 1 to 6 of writ petition are true

copies of their respective originals.

Place: Lucknow
Dated: /02/2024
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the abovenamed deponent, do hereby verify that the

contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to my
personal knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed.

So help me God.

Place: Lucknow

Dated: /02/2024 DEPONENT

IDENTIFICATION

I, identify and verified to deponent on the basis of records

who has signed before me.

Place: Lucknow

Dated: /02/2024 Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before me on …..……………. at

…………..a.m./p.m. by the deponent aforesaid who is identified by
Shri Aman Shankar, Advocate, Registration No. UP 07515 of 2016,
son of Shri Manoj Shankar, R/O I-1204, Spring Greens Apartment,
Faizabad Road, Lucknow, U.P-226016, practicing at High Court,
Lucknow.
 I have satisfied myself by examining that the deponent
understands about the contents of the counter affidavit which
have been read out and explained by me to him.

OATH COMMISSIONER