R. MANOJ Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner's father, being an employee of the respondent Bank, while working as Part -time Sweeper, died in harness on 07.02.2002, when the petitioner was aged about thirteen years. At that time, the petitioner's mother, being the wife of the deceased employee, applied to the respondent Bank for compassionate appointment under dying -in -harness scheme. Her application is said to have been rejected on the technical ground that 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:

(3.) AFTER one year from the date of Exhibit P8, the respondent Bank has re -introduced, through Exhibit P9 dated 07.08.2014, a scheme for compassionate appointment applicable from 05.08.2014. At this juncture, the petitioner once again approached this Court laying challenge against Exhibit P8 order of rejection, apart from seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to extend to him the benefit under Exhibit P9 scheme.