AJITHKUMAR G.K. Vs. CANARA BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the writ petition is the son of one V.C.Gopalakrishna Pillai, who was employed as a Clerk in the services of the 1st Respondent Bank. While serving the Bank, Sri. Gopalakrishna Pillai died on 20.12.2001, leaving behind his wife, petitioner and three daughters. The subject matter of the lis started with Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority of the Bank in order to consider him for compassionate appointment in accordance with Ext.P7 Scheme launched by the Bank. In Ext.P1 application, petitioner has also sought to relax age qualification since he has exceeded the age as prescribed under Ext.P7 Scheme. By Ext.P2 order, the Bank has rejected the request of the petitioner by stating that the deceased had only a short period of service, family pension is paid and that he was over aged. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted another application dated 07.01.2003 before the Deputy General Manager of the Bank, which is Ext.P3. As revealed from Ext.P3, he has requested to re-consider the whole issue on the basis of Ext.P1 application submitted by him and further that he has only exceeded one year in age against the age prescribed under Ext.P7. The said request made by the petitioner to re-consider the matter was also declined by the Bank by issuing Ext.P4 dated 20.01.2003, reiterating the very same reasons as stated in Ext.P2.

(2.) Having failed to secure the required results from the application and re-consideration application submitted by the petitioner, the wife of the deceased employee has filed Ext.P5 application before the Executive Director of the Bank, Bangalore dated 04.02.2003, in which she has requested to have maximum leniency in the matter of employment request of the petitioner, since after the death of the deceased employee, the family is put to several difficulties including the difficulties faced by the married daughters. Anyhow, the Respondent Bank by Ext.P6 order dated 18.02.2003 has declined the relief sought for without assigning much reasons, but stating that the same was considered sympathetically.

(3.) Having confronted with such a situation, petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition. The Bank has filed a Counter Affidavit as well as additional Counter Affidavit mainly contending that the subject matter of appointment in accordance with Ext.P7 Scheme, is the sole discretion of the Bank and when the Bank declined relief, the petitioner cannot compel the Bank to take a decision in a particular manner.