Smt K Lakshmi Vs Canara Bank

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20.02.2024 IN WP No.27347/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP AND (b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALONG WITH BY AWARDING THE COSTS OF THE LITIGATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38207-DB WA No. 554 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶39

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶41

submits that she is only relying on one judgment of the Apex Court in which the appeal has been dismissed.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶43

further submits that rejection of the applications for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner are at Annexure-F and Annexure-G on the sole ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee and no other questions have been considered.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶45

also relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in R. Jayamma Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board reported in ILR 1992 KAR 3416 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Bhuvaneshwari Vs. Puranik Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in ILR 2021 KAR

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:38207-DB WA No. 554 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

5256 , which has been affirmed by the Apex Court, specifically by its order dated 17.12.2021 in SLA No.20166/2021, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows;

¶50

"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and have analyzed the impugned judgment. We give our full imprimatur to the reasoning of the High Court, more so, as even the rule in question relied upon by the petitioner to deny a married daughter a job on compassionate grounds while permitting it to a married son, has been quashed in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Purani V. State of Karnataka (2021) 1 AKR 444 [AIR Online 2020 Kar 2303].

¶51

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

¶52

Pending application stands disposed of."

¶53

It is further submitted that refusal on the part

¶54

of the respondent- Bank in not considering the applications preferred by the appellant is illegal and unsustainable.

¶55

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

¶56

Bank, on the other hand, submits that the fact that the writ petitioner was a married daughter of the deceased employee and is a dependant on her husband has been

¶57

5 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:38207-DB WA No. 554 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

considered at Annexure-B. He also placed reliance on the

¶61

following decisions of the Apex Court.

¶62

Mrs Megha J vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Judgment dated 27 September, 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WA No. 891 of 2023.

¶63

State of Maharastra vs. Madhuri Maruthi Vidhate Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1327, AIR 2022 SC 5176.

¶64

Bank of Baroda vs. Baljit Singh passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 745; 2023 4 Supreme 688.

¶65

Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 729.

¶66

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138.

¶67

Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 26.

¶68

Having considered the contentions advanced on

¶69

either side and in view of the fact that the rejection was

¶70

only for the reason that the appellant is a married daughter and she is depending on her husband, we are of the opinion that rejection of the application for compassionate appointment was not proper.

¶71

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38207-DB WA No. 554 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

The judgment of the learned Single Judge therefore requires interference. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed . The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order impugned in the writ petition rejecting the application is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent- Bank to consider the application preferred by the appellant for compassionate appointment taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter, including dependency as well as the financial condition of the family and appropriate orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶74

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶76

PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Smt K Lakshmi v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K Lakshmi v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Siddharth Vs Sri M N Udayashankar

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs M/S. Rachana Rubbers Pvt. Ltd.

Malappa Lola Vs Subramani

Smt. Gangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Soundarya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Mangalamma Vs Sri.Venkatamuniyappa