Dismissed

Vijnani P.S., v. the Chief Manager

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018WA/2114/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Single Judge's order limiting a beneficent appointment claim to ex-gratia benefits under a 2006 scheme due to statutory delay. The High Court upheld the approach that immediate succour is the scheme's object and no direction is for reconsidering appointment after a long lapse.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal involving the claim for compassionate appointment/disbursement of benefits was dismissed.

Vijnani P.S., Vs the Chief Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

WA.No. 2114 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11438/2017 of HIGHCOURT

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

VIJNANI P.S., AGED 34 YEARS D/O SALIM N., RESIDING AT ANI NIVAS, TC5/221, NRA-II, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶11

BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.P.E.THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT:

¶13

1 THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645.

¶14

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVACORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.

¶15

3 THE CHIEF GENERALA MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.

¶16

4 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.

¶17

SRI P. GOPAL FOR RESPONDENT.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WA.No. 2114 of 2018

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶23

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment

¶24

dated 21.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No.11438/2017. The appellant was the petitioner therein. She is the daughter of one Jayasree who died in harness, on 08.06.2005, while working as a Special Assistant in the State Bank of Travancore. While the appellant contends that she submitted proper application for compassionate appointment in May 2006, the respondents would contend that it was submitted only in the year 2009. In fact, the precise case of the appellant is that immediately, within 6 months from the date of death of her mother, she submitted an application and thereafter when called upon to submit certain documents, she submitted such

¶25

documents along with Ext.P2 dated 22.05.2006. The respondents further contended that since the earlier scheme which was in force with effect from 01.01.1998 was superseded by circular No.07/2006 dated 08.02.2006

¶26

WA.No. 2114 of 2018

¶27

¶28

she was required to resubmit the application in the

¶29

appropriate form. It is also the case of the respondents that subsequently, she submitted an application in tune with the 2006 Scheme only in the year 2009. This contention of the respondents was resisted by the appellant and according to her she did not submit any application in the year 2009. Be that as it may, the fact is that by the time the petitioner submitted the application either in May, 2006 or in the year 2009, the scheme in force was the Scheme for payment of Ex-gratia Lump sum under Circular No.07/2006 dated 08.02.2006. The learned Single Judge considered the said aspect and ultimately directed that in such circumstances, the appellant is entitled only to get

¶30

the benefits flowing from the scheme under Circular No.07/2006 dated 08.02.2006. Consequently, the respondents were directed to quantify the benefits flowing from the same and to disburse the same within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Dissatisfied with the nature of the judgment that the captioned appeal has been filed.

¶31

WA.No. 2114 of 2018

¶32

¶33

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the appellant and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no justification for not considering the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has emphasized the incongruity obtained on comparison of the pleadings in Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit and Ext.P5. In fact, according to the petitioner, she had submitted an application prior

¶35

to the introduction of circular No.07/2006 dated

¶36

08.02.2006. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that since the even if it is admitted for argument sake that the earlier scheme was superseded by a new scheme in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India & Another

¶37

Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 the

¶38

petitioner cannot be heard to contend that her application should be considered in the light of the scheme which was in existence at the time she submitted the application. In view of the said decision it has

¶39

WA.No. 2114 of 2018

¶40

¶41

to be considered in accordance with the extant rule.

¶42

We are of the considered view that in view of the indisputable facts obtained in this case, that the death had occurred on 08.06.2005, it may be against the very purpose and object of the scheme for compassionate appointment at this distance of time, no direction could be issued for considering the applicant for compassionate appointment. The very avowed purpose of such a scheme is to give immediate succour to the bereaved family. Getting compassionate appointment is not at all an indefeasible right. After a long lapse of time, issuing a direction to consider for compassionate appointment would virtually go against the very purpose of the scheme. But at the same time, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the benefits available to the appellant in

¶43

terms of circular No.07/2006 dated 08.02.2006. The

¶44

upshot of the discussion is that we do not find any reason at all to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. In the said circumstances,

¶45

WA.No. 2114 of 2018

¶46

¶47

this appeal must fail and consequently it is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

avs

WA.No. 2114 of 2018

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX

¶58

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PROFESSOR OF ARTHOPEDICS, DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPAEDICS, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11.9.2018

¶60

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Vijnani P.S., v. the Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijnani P.S., v. the Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Jansiram Meena

Sreeja K K Vs Secrtary, Sreekandapuram Municipality

A.M.Basheer Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala, Vs K. Sudhakara Bhat

Dr. Lekshmipraya K.S Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs P.J.Abraham