Remanded

Smt Mehaboobi v. State Bank of Mysore

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2012WP/66471/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order regarding the rejection of a compassionate employment application. It held that since a financial dispute existed regarding the petitioner's income after loan deductions, the earlier decision was set aside and remanded for reconsideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to prove their financial status.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the claim is set aside; the matter is remitted to the respondent authority to take further action after affording the petitioner an opportunity to prove their income.

Smt Mehaboobi Vs State Bank of Mysore — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition 66471 / 2009 ( S )

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Smt Mehaboobi, 54 yrs W/o Budansab Yereshimi R/o Byadgi Taluk, Haveri

¶9

2 Babusab, 33 yrs S/o Budansab Yereshimi R/o Byadagi Taluk, Haveri Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri F V Patil, Adv.)

¶11

And :

¶12

1 State Bank of Mysore Personnel Dept., H O: Bangalore By its General Manager (Operations) Bangalore

¶13

2 Manager State Bank of Mysore Byadagi Branch Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Harsh Desai, Adv.)

¶15

¶16

The Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 30.10.2009 – anexure F by the 1^st respondent.

¶17

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of one Budansab Yereshimi, application was filed way back in the year 2002 by the petitioners before the respondent. The deceased was working as a Cashier under the respondent

¶20

Bank. For non-consideration of the application, petitioners have moved this Court.

¶21

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶22

According to the respondents, they have taken a decision

¶23

rejecting the claim on the ground that income of the petitioners is not below Rs.5,000/- i.e., the benchmark as such, their case cannot be considered.

¶24

¶25

According to the petitioners’ counsel, house loan was raised and there was deduction of Rs.1,670/- per month as such, the income of the petitioner was below Rs.5,000/-. The same has not been considered and it is further submitted, although application is submitted in the year 2002, decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been taken very belatedly.

¶26

It appears, as per facts, pension drawn by the petitioner is about Rs.4,617/-. However, according to the petitioners’ counsel, the income does not exceed Rs.5,000/- after deducting Rs.1,670/- towards installment paid towards housing loan. The case of the petitioners is, they have no income at all and their income is below the benchmark.

¶27

Nothing has been stated by the petitioners also as to the source of income other than pension. It appears, 2^nd petitioner is also sufficiently aged. Petitioners are seeking employment to the 2^nd petitioner on compassionate grounds. No evidence is produced before the authority nor the authority has got any

¶28

¶29

evidence regarding income other than by way of pension being paid to the 1^st petitioner.

¶30

Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sundaramma R Munikrishna & Kum. M Chayadevi Vs Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka – ILR 2006 KAR 3657 to contend, appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right. Since there is is a dispute raised by the petitioners that after deduction of installment towards housing loan their income is below the bench mark, the decision already taken has to be reviewed once again for which the petitioners also should come out with true facts as to their income being below the benchmark and to prove that they are in financial crisis.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the decision taken earlier without there being an opportunity to the petitioner, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent authority for taking further action according to law, expeditiously.

Petition is allowed.

Sd/- Judge

Smt Mehaboobi v. State Bank of Mysore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mehaboobi v. State Bank of Mysore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallikarjun Siddanagouda Goudar Vs the Divisional Controller

Dr. A.B. Khot Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Veerashaiva College Vs Kumari C Padmakshi

Wajidatabassum D/O.Bashirahemad Sayyed Vs the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Edu Govt of

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Bellada Bagewadi Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Hescom Corporate Office