Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78000 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3613 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rahul Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shabista Parveen Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. By the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.2-Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow, the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds has been declined. The petitioner is the brother of the deceased-employee who died in harness. The brother of the petitioner died on 23.05.2021. The claim of the petitioner has been declined for compassionate ground appointment on the footing that the monthly income of the family of the deceased- employee is 60% of the gross salary of the deceased staff member. The relevant parts of the impugned order are extracted hereunder: "5. The test that income of the family is indigent in nature is that the total monthly income of the family is less than 60% of the Gross salary of the deceased staff member. 6. Gross salary of the deceased staff member was Rs.60,896.80. Total monthly income of the family of the deceased staff member is Rs.55,812.21. 60% of Gross salary of the deceased staff member comes to Rs.36,538.08." It is submitted by Ms.Shabista Parveen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the monthly income of the family of the deceased-employee has been incorrectly calculated. The father of the petitioner was not supporting the family. Hence, the income of the father of the petitioner was not liable to be computed as part of the monthly income of the family. The pleading to this effect has been taken in paragraph 41 of the writ petition. The aforesaid pleadings have not been denied in the counter affidavit. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 however, submits that from the records it is evident that the aforesaid case has been set up as an afterthought. The petitioner while submitting his application discloses the income of the father and did not caveat the aforesaid disclosure by stating that the father was not supporting the family. He, however, fairly submits that the aforesaid issue which is a matter of fact is liable to be examined by the competent authority in the first instance after hearing necessary parties and upon appraisal of relevant documents and other evidence. Since the aforesaid issue has been taken by the petitioner for the first time in the writ petition, the Court declines to interfere in the impugned order dated 13.03.2024. However, the interest of justice will be served by remitting the matter to the respondents-authorities for fresh consideration and granting a post decisional hearing to the petitioner. The respondent-Central Bank of India shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish that the father of the petitioner is not supporting the family, and that his income was incorrectly computed in the monthly income of the family of the deceased. The respondent-bank shall pass a fresh order after considering the aforesaid facts and any other relevant factors in accordance with law. The exercise shall be completed by the respondent-bank within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The impugned order in the writ petition shall abide by a fresh order which shall be passed in pursuance of the directions issued in the instant writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Ashish Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad