AJITHKUMAR G.K. Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. V.C. Gopalakrishna Pillai while working as a clerk in the services of the respondent Bank died in harness on 20.12.2001 leaving behind his widow, three daughters and a son (who is the petitioner). The daughters were married at that time and hence the petitioner filed Ext.P1 application dated 15.1.2002 for compassionate employment in the Bank. The petitioner had failed in his SSLC Examination and could be accommodated in the sub-staff cadre only as per Ext.P9 scheme of employment on compassionate grounds. But the Bank by Ext.P2 order dated 30.10.2002 rejected the application on the ground that the deceased employee had only a short period of service left. The fact that the family of the deceased employee is in receipt of family pension and that the petitioner is over aged for the post are the other reasons stated. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P3 petition dated 7.1.2003 reiterating his claim and sought for reconsideration of Ext.P2 order of rejection. The Bank by Ext.P4 order dated 20.1.2003 informed the petitioner about its inability to reconsider its decision on the plea that no fresh grounds have been stated.

(2.) The mother of the petitioner later submitted Ext.P5 petition dated 4.2.2003 to the Bank highlighting the pitiable condition in which the family is placed and seeking their indulgence. The Bank by Ext.P6 order dated 18.2.2003 turned down the request on the ground that the application put in by the petitioner had been considered in detail. The orders rejecting the claim for compassionate employment by the Bank were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38363/2003 on the file of this Court. This Court by Ext.P7 judgment dated 16.6.2015 castigated the stand of the Bank and directed reconsideration of the issue after quashing the impugned orders. The Bank by Ext.P8 order dated 16.6.2015 again rejected the claim on the ground that the family is not in indigent circumstances since it is in receipt of terminal benefits. Ext.P8 order negativing the claim for compassionate employment is impugned in this writ petition with a further prayer for immediate appointment in the Bank.

(3.) The Bank has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the father of the petitioner had only four months of service left when he died in harness on 20.12.2001. The father would have supported his family with his pension (approximately worked at Rs.6398.00 per mensem) had he retired from the services of the Bank in the normal course. The Bank contended that the widow of the deceased employee has been sanctioned a family pension of Rs.4637.92 per mensem in addition to the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.3.09 lakhs. The Bank asserted that the objective underlying Ext.P9 Scheme is to help the dependants of the employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis on account of his death. It is the case of the Bank that mere eligibility of the petitioner will not clothe him with a right to claim employment under Ext.P9 Scheme. The Bank reiterated that the family of the deceased employee was not in indigent circumstances necessitating employment to one of his dependants in the instant case. The question of relaxation of age to put in a claim does not arise since the petitioner for reasons afore stated is not otherwise eligible for compassionate employment.