Allowed

M. Jayakumar, v. The Managing Director

Telangana HC28 Dec 2011WP/32394/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, son of a deceased bank employee. The court directed the respondent to consider the case under the existing scheme within two months, noting the assurance previously given and disallowing the ban on recruitment as a valid bar.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within two months.

M. Jayakumar, Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 32394 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, forthwith.

¶5

The facts in brief are:

¶6

The petitioner’s father, Late M. Kesavulu, worked as Shroff/Clerk in the respondent Bank and died on 13.06.1997 while in service. The petitioner made a representation dated 28.08.1997 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent bank rejected his request stating that there is a ban on fresh recruitments. The petitioner filed W.P.No.22535 of 2001 and later withdrawn the same. It is stated that the petitioner had withdrawn the said writ petition on the assurance given by the respondent that he would consider his case. The petitioner is a Graduate. Till date, the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was not considered. Seeking direction to the respondent to consider his case and appoint him in the respondent Corporation, this writ petition is filed.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s father was a regular employee of the respondent bank and he died while in service. It is stated that there is a scheme under which the dependents of deceased employees are entitled for compassionate appointment. It is contended that the ban on fresh recruitment does not apply in the present case and a compassionate appointment cannot be equated with a fresh

¶9

recruitment and hence, rejecting the case of petitioner stating that there is a ban on fresh recruitment is illegal. It is further submitted that the concept of providing compassionate employment to the dependents of the deceased is to make the family left by the deceased, to sustain, and hence, the grounds specified for rejecting the case of the petitioner is unsustainable. It is further contended that the writ petition No.22535 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn by the petitioner on the assurance given by the respondent bank that his case would be considered for compassionate appointment, but till date the respondent bank did not consider his case.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents bank contended that there is a ban on fresh recruitment and further, the compassionate appointments are the discretion of the bank and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶11

There is no dispute on the fact that the petitioner’s father was a regular employee of the respondent bank and he expired while in service. The petitioner’s mother made a representation on 04.06.2001 seeking appointment for her son. The respondent bank vide his letter dated 12.06.2001 did not consider the case of the petitioner stating that there is a restriction on fresh recruitments. Further, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22535 of 2001 which was withdrawn in 2003, purportedly on the assurance of the respondents that they will consider his case. Since his case is not yet considered, this writ petition is filed.

¶12

The respondent bank has evolved a scheme for compassionate appointment, elaborating on the procedure, eligibility criteria. The relevant portion reads:

¶13

“The Bank has evolved a scheme for appointment in the Bank of a dependent of a confirmed employee who dies while in service.

¶14

Under the scheme, appointment will be open only in clerical and sub-staff cadre posts subject to eligibility of the dependent appropriate to the cadre and subject to the other terms and conditions of the scheme….”

¶15

The petitioner’s earlier representation was not considered, not on the ground of the petitioner’s ineligibility as per the terms of compassionate appointments, but on the ground that there is a ban at that particular period of time. The ban was in the year 2001. There is a change of time and change of circumstances and, admittedly, there is a scheme in place, to appointment dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the compassionate appointment scheme, in the respondent bank, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶18

28^th December, 2011

¶19

KSM

M. Jayakumar, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Jayakumar, v. The Managing Director

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

B.Mallapa Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

Smt. N. Radha Kumari, Vs Regional Manager

Sri Mallesha Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M/s. Chaitanya Bharati Institute of Technology, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authori

R.S. Narayana Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Kande Jayamma Vs Chinni Lalithama