V MULLAI VASUKI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that the action of the respondents Bank in denying compassionate appointment to the second petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 38, 39 and 41 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the second petitioner.

(2.) THE first petitioner's husband Late K.Veerarajan, while serving as manager in the Sardhana branch of respondents-Syndicate Bank in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh was returning home from work carrying important documents and also the keys of the bank including keys of safe room, was shot dead on 25.6.2001 by unidentified youngsters and the assailants escaped after snatching his bag containing important bank documents and the bank keys from the victim. Though he was rushed to a nursing home, yet unfortunately he was declared dead. THE bank also remained closed on the next day as the keys were also in the looted bag. When this is the admitted position by both sides and when the poor wife of the victim viz. first petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to the second petitioner, the said request was turned down by the respondents as unjust. In support of their decision to refuse compassionate appointment, mercilessly they took shelter under hyper technical men-made rules. Had the first petitioner's husband, as a manager of the bank, not carried the bank's keys and important bank's documents, the unidentified assailants would not have shot him dead.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the amount of ex-gratia paid by the bank soon after the death of the officer Late K.Veerarajan was an amount in any way disbursed to the petitioners' family under the voluntary retirement scheme. He further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment under the new scheme prepared by the personnel department of the respondents-bank on 19.7.2007. While adding his submission, he also brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs 4(A) and 4(B) of revised model scheme for appointment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground. As per 4(B), when an employee dies, while performing duty, by way of robbery or dacoity, he is entitled to get compassionate appointment. THE case of the petitioners is fully covered by clauses 4(B) and para 5(h) of the very same scheme. Para 5(h) says that the scheme will come into force with retrospective effect from 31.7.2004 and all the applications pending as on 31.7.2004 shall be considered in accordance with the revised scheme. On these basis, he further contended that it is an admitted case by the respondents-bank that when the second petitioner's father who was the Chief Officer and manager of the bank, while getting into vehicle after closing the bank's door, the miscreants thinking that the manager was carrying the bank's money in his bag, attempted to snatch the bag and when the manager, to safeguard the interest of the bank, refused to part with the bag which was containing bank's keys including that of safe room, the miscreants shot him dead on the spot.