Patna High Court
Md. Qaumaru Zama @ Quamru zamaversusThe General Manager, Central Bank of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that the bank's rejection of the petitioner's application was proper as he did not satisfy the age eligibility stipulated in the recruitment policy.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Qaumaru Zama, sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus directing Central Bank of India to appoint him on compassionate grounds after his father's death, alleging that the bank violated a prior court order by refusing his application. He argued that the bank's recruitment policy allowed relaxation of the upper age limit for compassionate appointments and that, if not appointed, he should receive a lump‑sum ex‑gratia. The bank contended that the policy strictly required applicants for the Sub‑Staff post to be between 18 and 26 years old, and the petitioner, aged 41 at the time of application, was ineligible. The court examined the policy, particularly Clause 5.2, and found no discretion to overlook the age criterion. Consequently, the court concluded that the bank's rejection was lawful and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the bank's refusal to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds violates the order dated 25/08/2023 in CWJC No.15757/2022.
- Whether the bank's recruitment policy permits relaxation of the upper age limit for compassionate appointments.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a lump‑sum ex‑gratia payment in lieu of appointment.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- recruitment policy
- age limit
- ex‑gratia
- bank
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3248 of 2024
======================================================
Md. Qaumaru Zama @ Quamru Zama S/o Late Abdul Quadir, Resident of
Mohalla- New Karimganj, Road No.- 5, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The General Manager, Central Bank of India Head Office, Chandra Mukhi
Narayan Paint, Mumbai.
2. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Regional Office, Patna.
3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, A.M. College, Branch, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Anju Kumari Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Dilkash Khan, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent-Central Bank of India.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“i. For issuance of writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing of letter dated
25/09/2023 appended with letter dated
04/01/2022 and 31/01/2022 (annexure-12)
whereby and where under compassionate
appointment of petitioner has been denied by
respondent No.02 in violation of order dated
25/08/2023 passed in C.W.J.C No.15757/2022
without considering the direction of this Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.3248 of 2024(5) dt.20-04-2026
2/5
court.
ii. For issuance of writ of Mandamus
or any other writ or direction to respondent to
appoint the petitioner in class III post of the Bank
on compassionate basis since his father died
while working in service.
iii. For any other appropriate writ or
direction to the respondent for which the
petitioner is otherwise entitled under law.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the father
of the petitioner who was working as a Daftery in the Central
Bank of India died in harness on 2.2.2016. The petitioner filed
an application on 30.6.2018 for his appointment on
compassionate ground.
4. The application of the petitioner having been
rejected by order dated 25.9.2023 (Annexure-12) on the ground
that the petitioner aged 44 years did not fulfill the eligibility
criteria as per the recruitment policy, the instant application has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the said order as also
praying for a direction to the respondent-Bank to appoint him on
compassionate ground.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the step-mother of the petitioner had moved this Court in
CWJC no.9505 of 2016 wherein the matter ended in a
compromise between the family members. The petitioner also
Patna High Court CWJC No.3248 of 2024(5) dt.20-04-2026
3/5
moved this Court in CWJC no.15757 of 2022 which was
disposed of by order dated 25.8.2023 with a direction to the
respondents to take a decision within the time fixed in the order.
Referring to the ‘Policy for Appointment on Compassionate
Grounds or Payment of Lumpsum Ex-Gratia Amount On Death
in Harness of an Employee’ brought on record as Annexure-R/1
to the counter affidavit of the Bank, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Policy clearly stipulates that the
upper age limit can be relaxed whenever found to be necessary.
It is further submitted that in case the petitioner is not entitled
for compassionate appointment, at least the lumpsum ex-gratia
amount be directed to be paid by the Bank to the petitioner.
6. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the Bank. It is submitted that perusal of the Policy
would show that the appointment on compassionate ground as
also the payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount on death in
harness of an employee are interlinked and any of the two
options can be used only when the other conditions of
compassionate appointment are complied with. Clause 5 of the
Policy which deals with eligibility talks about the applicant
being eligible and suitable for post in all respects under the
provisions of the relevant recruitment rules and the recruitment
Patna High Court CWJC No.3248 of 2024(5) dt.20-04-2026
4/5
policy provides that the age of the applicant for appointment on
the post of Sub-Staff and Safai Karamchari should be between
18 and 26 years. The petitioner being much overage, his
application was rightly rejected by the order impugned.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, it transpires that on the
death of his father on 2.2.2016, the petitioner filed his
application for appointment on compassionate ground on
30.6.2018. The date of birth of the petitioner being 1.3.1977, the
petitioner was over 41 years of age on the date of his
application. Perusal of the Policy for Appointment on
Compassionate Grounds or Payment of Lumpsum Ex-Gratia
Amount would show that the same mentions about eligibility in
Clause 5. Clause 5.2 thereof is reproduced herein below for
ready reference :-
“5.2 Applicant for compassionate
appointment should be eligible and suitable for
the post in all respects under the provisions to
the relevant Recruitment Rules. Similarly,
payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount can be
used only when other conditions of
compassionate appointment are fulfilled.”
8. So far as the recruitment policy of the Bank is
concerned, a copy of which has been provided by learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.3248 of 2024(5) dt.20-04-2026
5/5
counsel for the Bank and has been taken on record, Chapter IV
Clause 4 thereof deals with eligibility criteria and age
stipulation and the age stipulated for the post of Sub-Staff for
appointment on which post the petitioner has filed his
application requires the age of the applicant to be between 18
and 26 years.
9. There being no dispute with respect to the fact that
on the date of application the petitioner was over 41 years in age
and as such he did not fulfill the age stipulation as per the
recruitment policy as required under Clause 5.2 of the Policy for
Appointment on Compassionate Grounds or Payment of
Lumpsum Ex-Gratia Amount.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Court finds no error in the order of the respondent-Bank in
rejecting the application of the petitioner.
11. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.