BODA DEEPTHI NAIK Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who claims to be the daughter of Late Boda Sudhakar, Employee No. 413352, Ex-Senior Manager, Hyderabad, M.J. Road Currency Chest, died in harness on 15/4/2017, seeks appointment on compassionate grounds in clerical cadre. According to her, rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent - Chief Manager (HR), Syndicate Bank, Manipal dtd. 23/3/2018 has no application to her claim.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner Ms. Jyotshna Devi appearing on behalf of Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel on record, submits that on the death of her father on 15/4/2017, petitioner made Application for compassionate appointment which was rejected vide order dtd. 23/3/2018 on the ground that as per Circular No. 062/2018/BC, dtd. 31/1/2018, appointment on compassionate grounds may be provided to the dependent family of the employee, who dies in service, subject to satisfying the condition that family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and where the total income of the family from all sources is below Rs.35,000.00 per month; since monthly notional interest income on terminal benefits and investment proceeds is Rs.19,421.00 and monthly pension from the bank of the deceased is Rs.23,912.00 ,totalling Rs.43,333.00, which exceeds ceiling limit of Rs.35,000.00, she is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground / lump sum ex gratia amount. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary to Govt., Department of Education (Primary) v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa,Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021. to submit that interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Promila,(2020) 2 SCC 729. wherein also it has been held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into.

(3.) On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank Sri A. Krishnam Raju, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh,(2014) 13 SCC 583. SBI vs. Rajkumar,(2010) 11 SCC 661. N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka,(2020) 7 SCC 617. State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur,(2007) 9 SCC 571. State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari,(2019) 5 SCC 600. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar,(2019) 3 SCC 653. contends that there can be no immediate or automatic appointment on compassionate grounds merely upon Application; several factors, including eligibility and financial condition, are to be considered up to the date of assessment. It is further contended that the bank has right to modify or abolish the compassionate appointment scheme at any time, subject to its policies, financial constraints, and post availability, hence, petitioner has no vested right to compassionate appointment, as pending Applications are processed according to the latest applicable Scheme.