HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 7738 of 2022 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner, assailing the order/letter dated 20.08.2018 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order/letter dated 17.09.2018, passed by respondent no.1, whereby reconsideration of her candidature on compassionate ground as per scheme of the Bank, has been rejected. 3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that father of the petitioner was appointed on 29.09.1984 and he died while in service on 27.12.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to the opposite party no.1, for appointment under the scheme, which provides the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground but without considering the financial hardships and liabilities of petitioner's family, the application has been rejected and, thereafter, another application moved by petitioner was also rejected on 17.09.2018. He further submits that the order of rejection dated 17.09.2018 was never communicated and once the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.6505 of 2022, the order dated 17.09.2018 was placed for the first time and then it came into the knowledge of petitioner that the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. He further submits that the order impugned do not speak regarding materials, on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Misra, Anjani Kumar Srivastava, Gaurav Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : Lalit Shukla, Anand Kumar Singh Ayushi Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) Regional Head Regional Office Bank Of Baroda Sultanpur And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) which the respondents came to the conclusion that the family of petitioner is not indigent. He further added that the petitioner is unmarried daughter of deceased employee and her family is facing financial hardships. He further submits that the order impugned is passed without assigning any appropriate reason and provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment or appointment of ex-gratia financial relief to dependents of the deceased employees, applicable to bank employees has not been considered. Concluding his arguments, he submits that even otherwise, after the death of any employee of an institution, the issue with respect to appointment on compassionate ground should be considered sympathetically, therefore, submission is that the order impugned do not stand on its own legs, thus, the same may be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently oppose the contention of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that first application of petitioner has been considered in strict compliance of scheme applicable in case of employees of the bank and as per the clause 5.1. of the scheme it has to be looked into whether the family of the deceased is indigent and deserves immediate assistance and relief from financial destitution. It has been submitted that the matter has been examined in view of clause 5.1 and it is found that the one of the sister of the petitioner is employed and the family has also been received full amount of terminal benefits of amount of Rs.32.084 lakhs and, therefore, petitioner do not come under the purview of indigent family. Thus, submission is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Upon considering the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is apparent that petitioner is the unmarried daughter of the deceased employee of the respondent bank. When this Court examines the impugned orders dated 17.09.2018 and 20.08.2018, it is apparent that the material on the basis of which, bank authorities reaches to the conclusion that family of the deceased employee is not indigent, has not been discussed. Only on the basis that the family of the deceased has received some terminal benefits, has no ground to consider the issue of financial hardships of family of deceased employee. 6. This Court has also noticed the contention of learned counsel for WRIA No. 7738 of 2022 2 petitioner that the order dated 17.09.2018 was informed to the petitioner in the year 2022, after filing of the Writ-A No.6505 of 2022. Looking into aforesaid scenario this Court reaches to the conclusion that the reasons for rejecting the claim of petitioner has not been properly discussed in the impugned orders dated 17.09.2018 and 20.08.2018 and, therefore, this action can not stand on its own legs as per the law settled by Supreme Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 17.09.2018 and 20.08.2018 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to move fresh representation while raising her claim for appointment with all the grounds within a period of ten days from today and if such representation is moved, the respondent no.1 Regional Head, Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, Sultanpur, U.P. is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within a further period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. It is provided that all pleas are open to be considered 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed. November 24, 2025 Arti/- WRIA No. 7738 of 2022 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench