PRAMOD GOVIND SAGALGILE Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs-

(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the respondentCanara Bank as a Clerk vide appointment order dtd. 1/6/1989, and his service record remained satisfactory. He was promoted to the post of Officer in Junior Management Grade ScaleI on 1/3/2008. The petitioner started suffering from serious health problems from the year 2000 and underwent major surgery for Nephrotic Syndrome in the year 2001. Since then, he has been under continuous medical treatment for the said ailment and was compelled to avail medical leave and all other eligible leave due to his serious health condition. Due to prolonged illness and irregular attendance, the superior officers of the respondentBank advised the petitioner either to attend duties regularly or to opt for voluntary retirement from service. Although about 14 years of service were still remaining before his date of superannuation, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to seek voluntary retirement on the ground of poor health of self and his elder son. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dtd. 22/2/2013 seeking voluntary retirement, along with necessary medical documents evidencing his medical condition, which was accepted and made effective from 1/6/2013. The petitioners son, Vaibhav, is a physically handicapped and disabled person and has been undergoing medical treatment for a prolonged period. The petitioner was required to incur substantial expenditure towards the medical treatment of his son. Accordingly, the petitioner also submitted medical records pertaining to his son to demonstrate the extent of his disability and incapacitation.

(3.) Be that as it may, the respondentBank accepted the petitioners request for voluntary retirement, and the petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 20/7/2013. Even prior to submitting the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner had made several representations to the respondentBank seeking appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. The respondent Bank, however, expressed its inability to accede to the said request by communication dtd. 14/12/2013, stating that appointments on compassionate grounds had been discontinued with effect from January 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a further application dtd. 9/4/2014, pointing out that he had been compelled to seek voluntary retirement much before completion of his remaining 14 years of service, and therefore his physically disabled son deserved to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds to ensure a regular source of income for the family. It was specifically stated that the family was facing acute financial hardship after the petitioners voluntary retirement, particularly in view of the substantial medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his disabled son. The respondentBank, by communication dtd. 29/4/2014, rejected the said application on the ground that appointments could be made only through direct recruitment and not on compassionate grounds.