L VENKATACHALAM Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second son of Mr. C.T.Lakshmanan, who was employed in the respondent bank. Since Mr. C.T.Lakshmanan was suffering from parkinson disease, he submitted an application to the respondent bank on 16.08.1996, seeking voluntary retirement from the services of the bank and also requesting to give appointment to his second son on compassionate grounds. The bank, by letter dated 02.06.1997 while accepting the voluntary retirement of the father of the petitioner, rejected the request for appointment on compassionate grounds, quoting the financial condition, as well as the fact that his other dependent son was gainfully employed. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said proceedings and also for a direction to the respondents to give employment to the petitioner.

(2.) Clause 5(x) of the Scheme provides for appointment of Dependants of deceased employees of the respondent bank on compassionate grounds, which is reproduced hereunder: "In case a widow, son or daughter is already in the employment, whether in the Bank or elsewhere, the Bank may, at its discretion, consider giving employment to another son or daughter of the deceased employee after taking into account the individual circumstances of each case i.e., the income of the member of the family already employed, the size of the family, the assets and liabilities of the family and other relevant consideration". (Emphasis supplied)

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mere fact that the dependent of the employee was employed cannot be a sole ground to reject the request of the employee for compassionate appointment for his second son and that each case has to be examined separately, particularly when the dependent has already employed, but living separately. In other words, it is contended that the very provision itself would become redundant.