Allowed

Pushpa T v. Central Bank of India

Kerala HC9 Jul 2010WP(C)/16010/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that appointment on compassionate grounds could not be directed as the bank scheme only provided for an ex-gratia lump sum payment. The petitioners were instead directed to apply for such benefit, which the Bank must process and pay within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to submit application for ex-gratia lump sum payment; Bank directed to process application and pay admissible amount within two months.

Pushpa T Vs Central Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 16010 of 2010(A)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------------

¶9

1. PUSHPA.T,W/O.LATE P.V.GOVINDAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,VALIYANOOR,VARAM.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. SANTHOSH KUMAR,S/O.LATE P.V.GOVINDAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,VALIYANOOR,VARAM.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. CENtRAL BANK OF INDIAN REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI.

¶15

2. REGIONAL MANAGER,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI.

¶16

3. BRANCH MANAGER,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, PERLASSERY BRANCH,MUNDALLUR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R1 SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR.K. FOR R1 SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C. FOR R1

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16010 OF 2010 (a)

¶20

=====================

¶21

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioners are widow and son of one Sri.P.V.Govindan, who was a Deftari under the 1^st respondent Bank. Sri.Govindan expired on 20/10/07 and thereupon the petitioners applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of the second petitioner. That was rejected by the Bank by Ext.P4 enclosing a copy of the application for the petitioners to claim exgratia lump sum amount.

¶24

According to the petitioners, they wanted employment assistance and not monetary compensation and therefore, they approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.15203/08. However that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn as per Ext.P6. According to the petitioners, such a step was taken on account of the possibility of getting employment assistance. However, nothing has materialised so far and they have again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶25

As is evident from Ext.P4 and the submissions made by the standing counsel for the Bank, the present scheme in vogue

¶26

WPC No. 16010/10

¶27

:2 :

¶28

only provides for payment of exgratia lump sum amount, which is in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶29

The benefit that is provided by an employer in favour

¶30

of the family of an employee who die in harness has to be governed by the rules framed by the employer. In this case, rule does not provide for appointment under compassionate ground, but only provides for payment of exgratia lump sum amount. If that be the scheme, claim has to be confined to the benefit so provided and nothing more than that is admissible.

¶31

Having regard to the fact that there is no scheme now prevailing in the Bank providing for employment on compassionate grounds, the prayer sought in the writ petition for directing the 2^nd petitioner to be appointed as Sub staff in one of the vacancies cannot be granted.

¶32

Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that admittedly the scheme provides for payment of exgratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment under compassionate grounds and as according to the petitioners, they have not so far submitted any application for the same, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to submit an application for the benefit

¶33

WPC No. 16010/10

¶34

:3 :

¶35

of such payment, in which event, the Bank will process the same in accordance with the rules. It is directed that if an application is made, the same will be processed and the Bank shall ensure that the amount admissible is paid to the petitioners, at any rate within two months of its receipt.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶38

Pushpa T v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa T v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balasubramania Kurup Vs the Sub Registrar and Others

Ajitha Shaji Vs Union of India

Mr.Arun A.C Vs Kerala Institute for Local Admn.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs BSNL Security Staff Association & Others

V.Vijayakumar Vs P.Jayakumar

Shylajakumari and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another