CHARAN RAJ Vs. CANARA BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash communication bearing No. Ref. No.(i) MGC/HRM/2352/2014 dated 14.12.2014 and communication bearing No.MFC:RL:RTI:69:2017:SS dated 14.09.2017, Annexures A and E respectively and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - Bank to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 28.07.2017, Annexure - D.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner 's father Sri.K. Gopala was working as sub-staff in the respondent - Canara Bank (for short 'the Bank ') having been appointed on 15.09.1998. The petitioner 's father while working in the respondent - Bank died on 14.03.1999. It is stated that at the time of the death of the petitioner 's father, the petitioner was aged 4 years and 5 months. It is also stated that petitioner 's mother who was also seriously ill, died on 02.01.2000 leaving behind the petitioner. The petitioner was the only child of the deceased parents. The petitioner attained the age of majority on 19.10.2012, his date of birth being 19.10.1994. Immediately thereafter the petitioner made application to the respondent - Bank on 06.11.2014 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The 2nd respondent vide communication dated 14.12.2014 Annexure -A communicated Bank 's inability to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter the petitioner made representation once again to the 1st respondent on 28.07.2017 praying for consideration of his appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner had also made an application on 31.08.2017 under Right to Information Act seeking certain information from the respondent - Bank. The said request was rejected under communication dated 14.09.2017. Thereafter, the present writ petition is preferred on 23.11.2017 challenging the endorsements dated 14.12.2014 and 14.09.2017. The respondents in their statement of objection contend that no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated so as to seek for a writ of mandamus. Further it is stated that no legal or statutory right of the petitioner is infringed so as to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that writ petition challenging the endorsement issued on 14.12.2014 is filed in the year 2017, which suffers from delay and laches. It is stated that as on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioner scheme for payment of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment, which was introduced w.e.f. 14.02.2005 was in existence and all applications were required to be examined as per the new scheme. The respondent - Bank processed the application of the petitioner and conveyed its inability to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds under Annexure - A dated 14.12.2014. On the death of the father of the petitioner and on the request of Smt. Gange, who was the guardian of the petitioner as per Court order, Bank granted family pension commencing form 31.01.2000. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment at the time of death of the employee, application for appointment on compassionate ground ought to have been submitted within a period of 2 1/2 years from the date of death of the employee. No such application has been received either from the dependant or any other close relative of the petitioner within the stipulated time. Thus prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.P. Muthanna learned counsel for respondents through video conference. Perused the writ petition papers.