1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her husband vide communication dated 01.03.2022.

2. One Maniram Shakya (father-in-law of the petitioner) appeared on behalf of petitioners and sought permission of this Court to argue the matter.

3. In the interest of justice, permission granted.

4. It has been argued by Maniram Shakya that his son Rajesh Kumar Shakya was working as a Peon with the Oriental Bank of Commerce and on 04.09.2018, while he was in service he expired. Immediately, after the expiry of his son, an application was moved for compassionate appointment by his adopted son Rajeev i.e. brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 but vide letter dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-1), it was intimated that the case of brother-in-law of the petitioner no.1 was considered by the Competent Authority and since he had not submitted any document with regard to his legal heir-ship i.e. adoption certificate despite of repeated reminders, his claim has been rejected. Thereafter the present petitioner No.1 moved an application for compassionate appointment in place of her husband and without considering the scheme for compassionate appointment which pertains to the year 2014, the said representation of the petitioner No.1 was rejected and vide letter dated 01.03.2022 it was directed to the Deputy Zonal Manager, Zonal Office Bhopal to intimate the same to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-bank submitted that on earlier occasion, the application for compassionate appointment filed on behalf of brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 was rejected as no document with regard to his legal heir-ship i.e. adoption certificate was produced before the Competent Authority. At later point of time i.e. on 01/04/2020 the Oriental Bank of Commerce got merged with Punjab National Bank and the application on behalf of petitioner No.1 was filed after the said merger and as per the scheme prevailing for compassionate appointment, she was held not entitled for compassionate appointment, as she was receiving the pension and there is no regular vacancy available in the bank. It was further argued that the claim of brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 was already turned down by erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce and review application was also rejected on 04.03.2000 and therefore since a decision was already taken by the bank previously, on application for compassionate appointment, at a later stage, the application of petitioner cannot be considered and even the scheme for compassionate appointment does not provide for the same. Thus, it was prayed that the petitioner has no merits and it deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. Vide D.O.F. No.18/2/2013-IR dated 7th August, 2014 a scheme was issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services for compassionate appointment in public sector banks which is be applicable from 5.8.2014. As per Clause 8.1 of the scheme, application for employment under scheme for eligible dependent was normally to be considered up to five years from the date of death or retirement on medical terms and decision is to be taken on merit in each case and under Clause 8.2, it is further been mentioned that however bank can consider request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back even five years ago and while considering such belated requests it should however be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for assistance to the family of the employee in order to leave it from and in such cases, the decision to make appointment on compassionate grounds would be taken at the Board. In wake of the scheme condition, especially Clause 8.1, this Court finds that death of husband of petitioner No.1 Rajesh had taken place on 04.09.2018 and since then five years as provided in the scheme had not elapsed, therefore as per scheme itself, the application of petitioner No.1 is tenable though from the record, it appears that the order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment has not been filed along with petition, but from the letter (Annexure P-6) dated 01.03.2022 whereby it was directed to inform the petitioner about the decision taken on her complaint that only because the earlier proposal for giving compassionate appointment to allegedly adopted brother of the husband of petitioner No.1 was declined by the competent authority cannot be said to be a proper reason, rejecting it on merits. Thus, this Court holds that the proposal of the petitioner No.1 was returned without any decision on the merits as provided under the scheme for compassionate appointment as referred to above which is against the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010)9SCC496, in which it has been held that:

47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

( c ) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or œrubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, Âœadequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisionsÂ.

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of Âœdue processÂ.

8. Therefore, in the fitness of things, this Court deems it necessary and expedient to relegate the matter back to the respondent bank to consider the case of the petitioner No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the scheme for compassionate appointment. This Court also directs the bank to take into consideration the financial status, the requisite qualifications of the petitioner No.1 and if finds her to be suitable for any of the post which is available with the bank may give her appointment.

9. This Court hopes and trusts that the application of the petitioner would be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law.

10. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.