Nimai Charan Manna v. The Union Of India And ORS.

27.08.2025 Ct. no.2 Sl. 18 b.r.

WPA 17684 of 2025 Nimai Charan Manna Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Saibal Acharya Ms. Renesa Dey .... For the Petitioner.

Mr. S.M. Obaidullah Mr. R.N. Majumder ...... for the respondents-PNB.

Ms. Sanchita Barman roy .... For the UOI.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

Father of the petitioner, as an employee of the respondents-Bank, had died during his employment tenure.

The petitioner being the son applied for compassionate appointment on March 6, 2025.

Ms. Renesa Dey, learned advocate led by Mr. Saibal Acharya, learned counsel places the last communication sent by the Bank to the Branch Head dated August 6, 2025, the same is taken on record.

The said communication has detected some anomalies which

appears to this Court to be curable, subject to in accordance with law.

The said communication shows that the employer Bank is in seisin on the issue and the application of the petitioner is under consideration.

In view of the above, the respondent no.5 and/or any other appropriate authority of the Bank shall consider the application of the petitioner and come to its logical conclusion with reasons.

If necessary, the Bank shall be free to call upon the petitioner for any clarification or production of any record or document and the petitioner, in that event shall render all its co-operation to the Bank to enable the Bank to come to a conclusion on the application of the petitioner. The Bank shall take a decision strictly in accordance with law but positively within four months from the date of communication of this order and shall communicate its reasoned decision to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the said reasoned decision to be taken by the Bank Authority.

The law is well settled that the policy for compassionate appointment is a benevolent and beneficial policy and the same shall be construed strictly, but of course in accordance with law, while considering the application of the petitioner. The Bank Authority shall also bear the same in mind.

This Court has not gone into the merit of the writ petition.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petitioner are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition, WPA 17684 of 2025 stands disposed of without any order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)