Dismissed

Aby Geevarghese v. Chairman and Managing Director

Kerala HC4 Jul 2023RP/533/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition seeking to revisit its order rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment. The Court held that the petitioners' new arguments relied on precedents already discussed in the earlier judgment and did not reveal any error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed and the underlying order remained unaltered.

Aby Geevarghese Vs Chairman and Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

R.P.No.533/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶7

RP NO. 533 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT in WP(C) 27930/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER:

¶10

ABY GEEVARGHESE AGED 36 YEARS S/O. T.M. GEEVARGHESE, THENGUVILAYIL HOUSE, CHANNAPETTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691311.

¶11

BY ADVS. M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY ANOOP SATHYAN MATHEW DEVASSI ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA REMYA M. MENON

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO. 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560002.

¶14

2 GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL WING, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO. 112, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560002. 3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES WING, PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SECTION, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO. 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. PIN - 560002 4 CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, 6648, 112, J.C ROAD, P.B - HALSURPETE, NAGARATH PETE, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN – 560001. (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/11/2021 IN IA 3/21 IN W.P.(C)27930/2019)

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SC GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶17

R.P.No.533/2022

¶18

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, THE COURT ON 4/7/2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.P.No.533/2022

V.G.ARUN J.

RP.No. 533 of 2022

Dated this the 4^th day of July 2023

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P14 rejecting the request for compassionate appointment made on behalf of the petitioner by his mother on the premise that the prevailing scheme for employment on compassionate ground covers only cases where death has occurred on or after 5/8/2014 and the petitioner's father having died on 12/4/1995. After elaborate consideration, this Court dismissed the writ petition finding the claim to be time barred and stale. For arriving at such conclusion, rejection of the initial claim for compassionate employment made by the petitioner's mother as per Ext.P3 letter dated 3/11/2003 and rejection of the second request made on behalf of the petitioner after he completed 20 years of age, were taken into consideration. The fact that the second rejection was challenged in W.P.(C) No.19656/2009 and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, finding no justification in

¶27

R.P.No.533/2022

¶28

¶29

directing consideration of the request for compassionate employment, the scheme for compassionate employment having seized in 2005, was noted. The unsuccessful challenge against Ext.P6 judgment up to the Supreme Court, introduction of a new scheme for compassionate employment with effect from 5/8/2014 and submission of Ext.P13 representation by the petitioner and its rejection as per Ext.P14 were also taken into account.

¶30

Adv.M.P.Madhavankutty, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, contended that the impugned judgment was rendered without considering the impact of the judgments in Canara Bank and Another v. M.Mahesh Kumar [(2015) 7 SCC 412] and Secretary to Government Department of Education(Primary) and Others v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264) . It is submitted that on the strength of Judgment in M.Mahesh Kumar (supra) identically situated applicants were given compassionate appointment, despite the death-in-harness occurring prior to the introduction of the Compassionate Employment Scheme of 2014. In Bheemesh (supra) , the Apex Court clarified that the interpretation as to the

¶31

R.P.No.533/2022

¶32

¶33

applicability of the modified scheme should be based on determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not indeterminate or variable factors. The argument is that the benefit of the above decisions is denied to the petitioner by reason of the impugned judgment.

¶34

Adv.Jaimohan, learned Standing Counsel for the Canara Bank, submitted that the attempt of the review petitioner is to re-agitate the issues decided in the writ petition. Reliance is placed on the decision in Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi & Others ( 1997 (8) SCC 715) to contend that the scope of review jurisdiction is confined to mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record and are self evident, not requiring a process of reasoning.

¶35

In spite of the assertive submissions made on behalf of the review petitioner, I find no reason to invoke the review jurisdiction, since the contentions now urged were considered and the cited precedents adverted to, while rendering the impugned judgment. As evident from the last paragraph of the judgment, this Court refused to consider the applicability or otherwise of the decision in Bheemesh (supra) finding the petitioner's claim to be time barred and stale. In as much as

¶36

R.P.No.533/2022

¶37

¶38

the said finding remains unchallenged, there cannot be review of the judgment based on the very same grounds urged and considered earlier, it being the settled law that review jurisdiction is to be exercised for correcting errors apparent on the face of the judgment and not when the judgment is contended to be erroneous.

¶39

For the aforementioned reasons, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

dpk

Aby Geevarghese v. Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aby Geevarghese v. Chairman and Managing Director

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

Rejeesh Vs Reshma Sreedharan

Kerala Financial Corporation Vs Abdul Rahiman

Philip Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Praveen, S/O.Thamarakshan, C.NO.3533 Vs State of Kerala

Padmakumar @ Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

G.Ajith Kumar Vs Muhammed Hanifa