Managing Director Vs Mir Akram Hussain

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.19115/2012(S-RES).

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and

¶25

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶28

A memo has been filed along with a copy of the paper cutting evidencing the publication of the notice in Times of India, English Daily Newspaper, Bengaluru Edition on Saturday, the 26^th October 2024. Despite publication, there is no appearance for the respondent.

¶29

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:159-DB WA No. 10 of 2024

¶31

This appeal has been filed by the Canara Bank challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2023 in Writ Petition No.19115/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraphs- 8 & 9 as

¶32

under:-

¶33

“8. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under Clause (9) on the premise that the petitioner was entitled to make a claim till 13.07.2016 and the claim made by him was within the prescribed time limit.

¶34

9. The said consideration shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶35

The facts relevant to be noted for the purpose of

¶36

this order are that, the respondent had challenged the endorsements dated 03.11.2012 and 07.05.2012 by which his claim for payment of lump-sum ex-gratia and also for appointment on compassionate ground were rejected for the reason, he was ineligible. In so far as the claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, it is noted that

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:159-DB WA No. 10 of 2024

¶38

the petitioner’s wife passed away on 14.07.2011 and according to the scheme framed in terms of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance as approved by the Board of Directors of Canara Bank on 09.03.2015, an eligible dependent will normally be considered up to five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds, and the decision to be taken on merit in each case.

¶39

As stated above, the petitioner’s wife having expired on 14.07.2011 and his request was rejected in the year 2011/2012, the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the respondent could not have been passed, as, such a direction would be beyond five years from the date of death, and as such contrary to the scheme. The effect of the learned Single Judge’s order shall also be that all the past cases which have been rejected would also be re-opened. We have also seen the endorsements dated 03.12.2011 and 07.05.2012. They clearly state that there is no scheme for payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount and also for providing appointment

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:159-DB WA No. 10 of 2024

¶41

on compassionate ground at the time of death of the wife of the respondent. When there was no scheme for grant of lump-sum ex-gratia payment and for compassionate appointment, and the same having been introduced in 2015, but with certain conditions, any direction contrary to the conditions is not sustainable.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2023 in Writ Petition No.19115/2012 is set aside. The appeal is allowed . No Costs.

¶43

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶45

KGR*

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Managing Director v. Mir Akram Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director v. Mir Akram Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank Vs Sri Yogish Kumar

Shriram Properties Limited Vs Krishna Singh Yadav

Decathlon Sports India Private Limited Vs Venus Infrastructure and Developers Prvate Limited

S. Jagannath Vs Union of India

M/S Manish Man Power Agency Vs the Commissioner

The General Manager Vs Sri. K. Nagaraj