The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment or monetary benefits for the petitioner, whose father died in harness in 2002. Rejecting retrospective application of a new bank scheme, the court held the claim time-barred and no substantive right, opining the party must seek financial benefits as earlier directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).NO. 26935 OF 2014 (N)
PETITIONER:
R. MANOJ, S/O. LATE RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, KUNCHALI VILAKOM, 1/35, PEROOR, PANGAOPPARA, KARIAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, FIELD GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE, (FGMO), CHENNAI-600 001.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL POLICY SECTION, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 001.
BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).NO. 26935 OF 2014 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXHIBIT P1- | TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2- | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3- | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-03-2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. |
| EXHIBIT P4- | TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. |
| EXHIBIT P5- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 25-02-2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. |
| EXHIBIT P6- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-09-2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. |
| EXHIBIT P7- | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.32862/2011 DATED 09-04-2013. |
| EXHIBIT P8- | TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-07-2013. |
| EXHIBIT P9- | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-08-2014. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
W.P.(C)No.26935 of 2014 N
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
WPC 26935/14
2
proper supporting documents had not been annexed. Later, once again, the petitioner's mother applied annexing all the necessary documents. It is disputed whether any proper communication has been addressed by the Bank to the petitioner's mother concerning the rejection of her second application. The fact, however, remains, that the claim of the petitioner's mother has not been considered for compassionate appointment. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 application on 27.09.2008 for compassionate appointment. When the respondent Bank did not pass any orders in response to Exhibit P6, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No. 32862/2011, which resulted in Exhibit P7 judgment. This Court, in Exhibit P7 judgment, observed as follows:
“In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
The petitioner or his mother shall submit a representation before the respondent Bank seeking ex-gratia payment on the basis of
WPC 26935/14
3
available scheme and such an application has to be considered and disposed of by the Bank within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the application it shall also be borne in mind that proper reply had not been given to the petitioner or his mother on the basis of Ext.P2 application. If at all any scheme is available to enable the petitioner to get an employment the same may also be considered as per the prescribed procedure.”
judgment of this Court, the respondent Bank eventually passed an order rejecting the petitioner's claim through Exhibit P8. It can be seen from the record that the respondent authorities have, apart from rejecting the claim of the petitioner, provided an opportunity to the petitioner and his mother to submit an application, in the format prescribed and annexed to Exhibit P8, to claim monetary benefit in lieu of the compassionate appointment. Neither the petitioner nor his mother seems to have taken advantage of the offer made by the respondent Bank.
WPC 26935/14
4
WPC 26935/14
5
compassionate appointment to the petitioner. According to him, providing monetary benefit is in the alternative and only when it is statutorily not permissible for the respondent Bank to accommodate the request of the petitioner. The learned counsel has laid stress on the aspect that in terms of Exhibit P9, it is eminently possible for the respondent Bank to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
WPC 26935/14 6
any cause that arises on after 05.08.2014 could be entertained, subject to the other eligibility criteria of the candidates, but not that of the petitioner whose cause arose in 2002 and whose cause stood clearly rejected by the respondent Bank on more than one occasion.
WPC 26935/14 7
the respondent Bank may consider the option of providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner, if it is feasible, or in the alternative, providing monetary benefits to the bereaved family of the deceased employee. Though heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Exhibit P9, it is very evident from the scheme re-introduced by the respondent Bank that it is effective only from 05.08.2014. In other words, any cause that arises subsequent to that date can alone be considered under the revived scheme, as could be seen from Exhibit P9.
WPC 26935/14 8
law that delay is a vital factor in considering the claim of compassionate appointment. Indisputably, the petitioner's father died in 2002, and subsequently, the claim of the petitioner's mother was rejected; later that of the petitioner too was rejected by the respondent Bank. It cannot be said that the rejection is in violation of the scheme introduced with regard to the compassionate appointment. Similarly, the petitioner, I am afraid, cannot take any advantage of Exhibit P9 as it has only prospective application.
WPC 26935/14
9
purpose and take all necessary steps in that regard so that the family can have the financial benefit.
with the above observations, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge
tkv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained more than a decade after the employee's death.
Whether the newly introduced scheme for compassionate appointment has retrospective effect to include the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits in lieu of compassionate appointment as directed in the earlier judgment.
R. Manoj
The General Manager, Union Bank of India and Others
Dama Seshadri Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
