B.Rajasekhar vs Andhra Bank 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1138 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


            WRIT PETITION No. 24086 of 2004


O R D E R:

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

following relief:

"....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for records relating to and connected with Proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated 9th June, 2003 and set aside the same by holding it absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in any of the suitable post as per the scheme for compassionate appointment in any of the existing vacancy or by creating a supernumerary post in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2) As per the averments made in the affidavit filed along

with the writ petition, the brief facts of the case emerge as

under:

(i) The father of the petitioner, Sri B. John Prasada

Rao, died on 19.12.1998, while working as a Clerk in the

respondent-Bank. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner

made representation to the respondents for appointment to

the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondents

conducted a detailed enquiry on 22.11.1999. By letter,

dated 07.01.2000, the 2nd respondent rejected the request

for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate

grounds. The petitioner filed W.P.No.27078 of 2001 before

this Court and it was disposed of by its order, dated

11.11.2002 directing the respondent-bank to reconsider the

matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(ii) Thereafter, the respondent-bank with a malafide

intention directed the petitioner to appear before the

interview board for considering his case for clerical post.

The respondent-bank rejected his case for clerical post vide

proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated 09.06.2003, on the

ground that he is not suitable for appointment to the post

of a Clerk as he was not able to write or read even a few

sentences in English. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the

present writ petition is filed.

3) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

In the said counter affidavit it was admitted that the father

of the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the service of

the respondent-Bank at its Old Guntur Branch at the time of

his death i.e., on 19.12.1998 and the deceased was

survived by his widow, the petitioner and four daughters.

The respondent-bank has settled the terminal benefits of

the deceased and a sum of Rs.3,54,396/- was paid to the

family of the deceased. The deceased employee had also

availed housing loan and constructed a house at Guntur.

The said loan was also closed with the Housing Loan

Insurance amount received from LIC of India. The mother

of the petitioner is being paid family pension over Rs.4,637-

92 ps. per month. As such, the competent authority found

that the petitioner's family had sufficient means to live upon

reasonably and declined the request of the petitioner for

appointment on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27078 of 2001 and

the same was disposed by this Court vide its order, dated

11.11.2002.

4) Further as per the directions of this Court in Writ

Petition No.27078 of 2001, the respondent-bank advised

the petitioner to appear for interview along with all

documents. The interview committee declined to appoint

the petitioner on compassionate grounds as the petitioner

unsuitable for appointment to the post of a clerk in the

service of bank as he was not able to write or read even a

few sentences in English and issued impugned proceedings.

As such, there is no substance and merit in this Writ

Petition. Therefore, the respondent-bank prayed to dismiss

the writ petition.

5) Heard Sri Pratap Narayana Sanghi, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and

perused the material available on record.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is

the only male member in the family and his father died

leaving behind him, his mother and four unmarried sisters

and that the family pension being received by his mother is

not at all sufficient to maintain the family. Learned counsel

further submits that even the rules do not debar or prohibit

a person for compassionate appointment on the ground that

he was paid terminal benefits or that the family is receiving

family pension.

7) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

respondents are not justified in denying the appointment to

the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the premise

that the family of the deceased was paid the entire terminal

benefits and the mother of the petitioner is being paid

family pension.

8) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends

that the petitioner never opted for any clerical post and he

informed the bank officials that he may be considered for

any suitable post as per the scheme of compassionate

appointment. But, the respondent-bank deliberately and

intentionally with a malafide intention, rejected the case of

the petitioner on the ground that he is not suitable for

clerical post. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the

respondent-bank and requested to consider his case on any

Class IV post, but the respondent-bank did not consider his

case.

9) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents-Bank submits that the

scheme for compassionate appointments were/are framed

as per the guidelines of the Government and it is the

Government which decides the scheme and not by the

individual banks. It is further submitted that as per the

directions of this Court in W.P.No.27078 of 2001, dated

11.11.2002, the petitioner was called for an interview as

per the scheme and the selection committee which

interviewed the petitioner found him not fit for the

appointment and accordingly, the petitioner was informed

by letter, dated 9th June, 2003 and as such, sought

dismissal of the writ petition.

10) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel

for both sides and upon perusing the material available on

record, it appears from the record that consequent to the

demise of the bread winner of the family, who died in

harness on 19.12.1998 an application was made to the

respondents for appointment to the petitioner on

compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected

on 07.01.2000. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition

No.27078 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner. The said writ

petition was disposed of directing the respondents to

reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law.

11) Though the reasons for rejection of the claim of the

petitioner was not mentioned in the rejection order, dated

07.01.2000, the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed in

W.P.No.27078 of 2001 stated the reasons for rejection, in

which it was stated that due to the reason that the family of

the petitioner was paid Rs.3,54,396/- towards terminal

benefits and the mother of the petitioner is being paid

family pension of Rs.4,637-92 ps. per month and the

housing loan availed by the deceased employee was closed

with the housing loan insurance amount received from Life

Insurance Company of India and as such, there is no right

under law for appointment under compassionate grounds.

12) This Court after examining the reasons submitted by

the respondents for rejection of the claim of the petitioner

and upon relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited1 and

the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs.

(2000) 6 SCC 493

D. Gopaiah2, in which it was held that compassionate

appointment could not be denied on the ground that family

benefit scheme was available, in as much as it was not a

substitute for compassionate appointment, directed the

respondents to reconsider the matter.

13) It appears in compliance of the orders of this Court in

Writ Petition No.27078 of 2001, the respondents called the

petitioner for an interview scheduled on 28.04.2003 along

with all certificates. The interview was postponed and it

was rescheduled on 24.05.2003. The committee appointed

by the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-

Bank interviewed the petitioner and it was informed to the

petitioner vide Letter No.666/3/R/65, dated 09.06.2003

that the committee found the petitioner unsuitable for

appointment to the post of a Clerk in the Bank's service as

he was not able to write or read even a few sentences in

English. It appears this rejection order was passed under

the impression that the claim of the petitioner for

appointment as a Clerk in the service of the Bank.

2001(6) ALD 759 (FB)

14) But, it is the contention of the petitioner that he never

submitted application seeking appointment as a Clerk in the

respondent-Bank. He requested only to appoint him in any

suitable post on compassionate grounds. The respondents

only to deprive the petitioner, they consider the claim of the

petitioner against a post of Clerk and rejected the same

intentionally.

15) To examine the rival contentions of the parties, it is

appropriate to consider the scheme for appointment to the

dependents of deceased employees on compassionate

grounds framed vide Circular No.198, dated 01.05.1990 by

the respondent-Bank. The relevant paragraphs of the

scheme are extracted as hereunder for better appreciation

of the case:

3. APPOINTMENT UNDER THE SCHEME:

The Bank may at its discretion, appoint in the Bank, in any of the posts mentioned hereunder, the widow or a son or daughter of a deceased employee of the bank or a near relative nominated by the Widow on whom she will be wholly dependent and who would give in writing that he or she would look after the family of the deceased employee, if the widow or son or daughter or a near relative, as the case may be, fulfill, the criteria for appointment under the scheme. Where the deceased employee was a widower or a bachelor, the bank may exercise its discretion in this

regard, by making enquiries of the next elder in the family. The appointment under the scheme shall be made in officer, Clerical and Allied Cadre and Sub-staff cadre which are asunder:

i)     Officer cadre (only in very deserving cases),
ii)    Clerk, Cashier-cum-Clerk, Telephone Operator,
iii)   Godown Keeper,
iv)    Stenographer, Machine Operator,
v)     Typist and such other posts in Clerical cadre,
vi)    Sub staff Cadre,
vii)   Part-time sweeper.


5. METHOD OF APPOINTMENT:

i) Request for appointment under the scheme should be received by the Bank within one year from the date of death of employee. In case the dependent is a minor or does not possess suitable minimum qualifications his/her case can be considered within four years of the death of the employee, to enable him/her to so qualify in terms of age and are qualification, provided that the dependent has made a request to the bank within year of the death of employee.

(ii) x x x x

(iii) x x x x

(iv) QUALIFICATIONS:

a) To qualify for appointment in clerical cadre, a dependent including the widow of a deceased employee, the minimum qualification would be a pass-in the SSC/SSLC/ Matriculation only. A dependent of a deceased employee who possess technical qualifications etc., which are

prescribed for the posts of Stenographers, Machine Operators or posts requiring technical qualifications etc., his/her case is considered for the particular post as in the case of general candidates.

b) To qualify for appointment in sub-staff cadre, a dependent of a deceased, who can prove to the satisfaction of the appointing authority that he/she possesses the simple knowledge of reading and writing English or the regional language, is eligible and requirement of his/her having passed any examination in school is not to be insisted upon. The above requirement is relaxed even further with respect to widows, provided she can perform the duties of sub-staff cadre.

c) No minimum qualification is prescribed for appointment as part time sweeper in sub-staff cadre.

V) Applicants would not be required to undergo any written test for appointment under the scheme save and except that they will have to undergo a test in type writing/ machine operating/telephone operating and shorthand writing etc., in case of appointment to the posts of typists, machine operators, telephone operators and stenographers etc.

16) On perusal of the above qualifications, it is clear that

to qualify for appointment in sub-staff cadre, a dependent

of a deceased, who can prove to the satisfaction of the

appointing authority that he/she possesses the simple

knowledge of reading and writing English or the regional

language, is eligible and requirement of his/her having

passed any examination in school is not to be insisted upon.

17) The petitioner was aged 19 years and he passed

Intermediate and as such, definitely, he may be able to

possess the simple knowledge of reading and writing the

regional language. In clause (b) of (iv) in which the

qualifications required are mentioned stating that he

possess the simple knowledge of reading and writing

English or the regional language. But, in the present case,

the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents

on the ground that he is not able to read or write a few

sentences in English. As and when in the scheme itself it is

provided that if he possess the simple knowledge of reading

and writing in the regional language is sufficient, rejecting

the case of the petitioner on the ground that he is not able

to read and write English, appears to be contrary to the

scheme formulated by the respondent-Bank itself. The

reason given to reject the case of the petitioner is

unjustified. In view of the same, this Court holds that the

action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the

petitioner vide proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated

09.06.2003 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the

object of the compassionate appointment scheme of the

Bank and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution

of India. The respondents instead of rejecting the petitioner

for clerk post ought to have appointed him in Sub-staff

cadre.

18) This Court has gone through the citations relied by the

learned counsel for the petitioner in Smt. Subhadra v.

Ministry of Coal3 and the learned counsel for the

respondents relied on the decisions in (1) State Bank of

India & Anr. V. Raj Kumar4, (2) MGB Gramin Bank v.

Chakrawarti Singh5, (3) Canara Bank and another vs.

M. Mahesh Kumar6 (4) Indian bank and others vs.

Promila and another7 (5) State of Madhya Pradesh

and others vs. Amit Shrivas8.

19) There is no dispute with regard to proposition of law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments

relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, in

which it was held that the appointment on compassionate

AIR 2018 Supreme Court 783

(2010) 11 SCC 661

(2013) 10 SCR 1

(2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 412

(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 729

2020 SCC OnLine SC 789

grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the same

is not vested right and the claim of compassionate

appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme

framed by the employer of such employment to get over

the sudden financial crisis.

20) In the present case, the respondent-Bank framed the

scheme called "Scheme for appointment in Officer, Clerical

and Allied Cadre and Sub-staff cadre to the dependents of

the deceased employees of Andhra Bank on compassionate

grounds by Circular No.198, dated 01.05.1990". As such,

the respondents are bound to follow the scheme to provide

compassionate appointment to the dependents of the

deceased employees, who died in harness while working in

the respondent-Bank. The respondents ought to have keep

in mind the settled law that compassionate appointment

could not be denied on the ground that family benefit

scheme was available, in as much as it was not a substitute

for compassionate appointment. The respondents contrary

to this settled law rejected the claim of the petitioner at

first instance stating that the family of the petitioner was

given some terminal benefits and mother of the petitioner is

being paid pension.

21) It is quite strange of note that one of the grounds to

reject the claim of the petitioner at first instance is that the

deceased employee had availed a housing loan and the said

loan was closed with the housing loan insurance amount

received from Life Insurance Corporation of India. This

Court unable to understand what is the role of the

respondent-Bank in closing the housing loan. It is a right to

every employee to avail a housing loan. The father of the

petitioner took insurance policy by paying premium. On the

sudden demise of the employee, the insurance company

made the payment and the housing loan account was

closed. In such circumstances, this Court unable to

understand what is the great favour done by the

respondent-bank to the family of the deceased employee by

closing the housing loan. The grounds mentioned in the

rejection order itself are not tenable and unsustainable in

the eye of law and in view of that fact only, this Court by its

order, dated 11.11.2002 in Writ Petition No.27078 of 2001

directed the respondents to reconsider the matter and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law.

22) To consider the case of the petitioner for appointment

on compassionate grounds pursuant to the direction of this

Court to reconsider it, the respondent authorities it appears

took an unreasonable stand by saying that they called the

petitioner for interview as per the procedure provided under

the scheme, but the real intention of the respondents

appears to be to deprive the petitioner. The object of

scheme of compassionate appointment is to enable the

family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden

crisis resulting due to death of the bread winner which has

left the family in penury and without any means of

livelihood. The respondents ought to have considered the

case of the petitioner on humanitarian consideration

keeping in mind that the family would not be able to make

both ends meet.

23) Learned counsel for the respondents brought to the

notice of this Court that from the date of death of the

deceased employee (i.e) 19.12.1998 till date (i.e) after 23

years the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in

the writ petition. But the learned counsel for the petitioner

placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Smt. Subhadra's case (3 supra). In that case the

petitioner's husband died on 06.07.2003. The Hon'ble Apex

Court directed the respondents therein to appoint one son

of the appellant on compassionate grounds after 15 years

from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner

therein.

24) The objective of the scheme of compassionate

appointment is a social security measure to help families of

deceased employees. Under the scheme, one of the

dependent family members of the deceased employee, who

die in harness, is eligible for appointment to a job in

respondent-Bank.

25) This Court is unable to agree with the stand of the

respondents. In the opinion of this Court, if such claims are

rejected on such unreasonable and untenable grounds, the

very object of scheme of compassionate appointments to

help the destitute families would be defeated.

26) For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is

allowed with the following directions:

(i) The proceedings issued in letter No.666/3/R/65,

dated 09.06.2003 by the 3rd respondent is hereby set

aside;

(ii) The respondents shall consider and appoint the

petitioner in Sub-staff cadre in the respondent-Bank, within

a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order; and

(iii) No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________ BATTU DEVANAND,J Dt. 25-02-2021.

Note: Issue CC in two days.

B/o PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

WRIT PETITION No.24086 of 2004

Dt.25-02-2021

Note: Issue CC in two days.

B/o PGR