Sandeep Kumar v. State Bank Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6435 of 2018 Sandeep Kumar S/o Late Shri Puniram Verma, aged about 23 years, R/o Ward-28, Godari Para, Azad Nagar, Chirimiri, Post Chirimiri, District Koriya (C.G.).

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Bank of India, Through Dy.General Manager, Administrative Office, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.).

---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate.

For respondents :

Shri Praful Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28/09/2018 1.

The counsel for the petitioner makes a request for permitting him to carry out the necessary amendments in the cause title so far as the respondent No.1 is concerned.

2.

Not opposed.

3.

Allowed.

4.

Let necessary amendments be carried out during the course of the day itself.

5.

The facts of the case is that, the petitioner had applied for grant of compassionate appointment on the death of his father who died in harness on 01/07/2018. The father of the petitioner was posted as Assistant (Clerical Grade) at the branch office under the respondent No.2.

6.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and in spite of his making an application for the same it has not been processed or decided. 7.

Given the limited grievance, let the respondents take a decision on the claim application put forth by the petitioner so far as his claim for compassionate appointment is concerned within a period of 60 days from today.

8.

It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion so far as the entitlement of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is concerned. If the petitioner is entitled for the same in accordance with the scheme applicable then let appropriate order be pass within the aforementioned time limit. In case if the petitioner is not entitled for the same, then it is ordered that the respondents shall intimate the petitioner so far as on what ground he is not entitled for the same.

9.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE