Andhra Bank vs P Rajasekhar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3865 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                    WRIT APPEAL No.206 of 2021

                     (Taken up through video conferencing)


Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India)
Rep. by its General Manager, Staff Department,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, and others.
                                                             .. Appellants
      versus
P. Rajasekhar S/o. Late Sri B. John Prasad Rao,
Now aged 40 years, R/o.16-5-125/5,
Christian Pet, Old Guntur.
                                                             .. Respondent

Counsel for the appellants : Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Dt: 01.10.2021)

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the

appellants. Also heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the

respondent/writ petitioner.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated

25.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24086 of 2004,

whereby the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed

by setting aside the proceedings dated 09.06.2003 issued by the 3rd

appellant/3rd respondent and directing the appellants/respondents to

appoint the respondent/writ petitioner in sub-staff cadre in the appellant-

                                     2                              HCJ & NJS, J
                                                            W.A.No.206 of 2021

bank within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

the order.

3. Mr. B. John Prasada Rao, father of the respondent/writ petitioner,

died on 19.12.1998 while working as a Clerk in the appellant-bank. The

request made by the mother of the respondent/writ petitioner for

providing compassionate appointment to the respondent/writ petitioner

was rejected by the authorities of the bank by an order dated

07.01.2000, which prompted the respondent/writ petitioner to file a writ

petition, numbered as W.P.No.27078 of 2001, before this Court. It

appears from the order dated 11.11.2002 passed in W.P.No.27078 of

2001 that the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected by the

authorities on the ground that the terminal benefits of an amount of

Rs.3,54,396/- was paid and that the mother of the respondent/writ

petitioner was being paid family pension. That apart, the appellants had

also taken a stand that the housing loan obtained by the deceased

employee was also waived and, therefore, no right accrued under law to

claim appointment on compassionate grounds. The stand taken by the

authorities was negated by this Court and, accordingly, the authorities

were directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law. Subsequent thereto, the impugned order dated

09.06.2003 came to be passed by the 3rd appellant stating that the

Committee appointed by the Chairman & Managing Director of the

appellant-bank, which had interviewed the respondent/writ petitioner,

found the respondent/writ petitioner not suitable for appointment to the

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

English.

                                     3                               HCJ & NJS, J
                                                             W.A.No.206 of 2021

4. Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellants,

submits that the respondent/writ petitioner possesses Intermediate

qualification and in terms of Clause 5(iv)(a) of the Scheme for

appointment of dependants of deceased employees of the bank on

compassionate grounds, the case of the respondent/writ petitioner can

be considered for appointment only in clerical cadre and as the selection

committee had found him not suitable for appointment to the post of

Clerk, his case was rightly refused for compassionate appointment. He

further submits that the learned single Judge had wrongly placed reliance

on Clause 5(iv)(b) of the Scheme, which pertains to appointment in sub-

staff cadre. He submits that the Scheme has to be construed strictly and

in support thereof, he places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar,

reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412, Indian Bank and others v. Promila

and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya

Pradesh and Others v. Amit Shrivas, reported in 2020 SCC Online

SC 789. He also submits that from the date of death of father of the

respondent/writ petitioner, nearly 22 years have elapsed and therefore, at

this point of time, it may not be necessary to consider the case of the

respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.

5. Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the

respondent/writ petitioner, on the other hand, supports the order under

challenge and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. A perusal of Clause 3 of the Scheme for appointment of the

dependants of deceased employees on compassionate grounds, called as

the 'Scheme for appointment in Officer, Clerical and allied cadre and Sub-

                                         4                              HCJ & NJS, J
                                                                W.A.No.206 of 2021

staff cadre of dependants of deceased employees of Andhra Bank on

compassionate grounds' (for short, 'the Scheme'), filed at Page No.29 of

the appeal papers, would go to show that the bank may, at its discretion,

appoint in the bank in any of the posts mentioned thereunder the persons

belonging to the categories as indicated therein, if they fulfil the criteria

for appointment under the Scheme. The appointment under the Scheme,

in terms of the said Clause, is to be made in Officer cadre, Clerical and

allied cadre, and Sub-staff cadre.

7. Clause 5 of the Scheme deals with the 'Method of Appointment'

and sub-clause (iv) thereof, which deals with the 'Qualifications', is

relevant for consideration of the issue involved and is, therefore,

extracted hereinbelow for better appreciation:

"5. METHOD OF APPOINTMENT:

(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

qualification 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.

5 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.206 of 2021

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."

8. In consideration of the claim of a dependant for compassionate

appointment, the first question that would arise for consideration is as to

whether the person claiming such appointment is required to be

appointed on compassionate grounds and if the answer is in affirmative,

then the next question that would arise is in what category, he/she can

be appointed. In the instant case, there was no dispute that the

respondent/writ petitioner was in requirement of compassionate

appointment, but such appointment was denied on the ground that the

selection committee, in terms of the qualification prescribed in Clause 5

(iv)(a) of the Scheme, found him not suitable for appointment to the post

of Clerk. A perusal of Clause 5(iv)(a) of the Scheme would go to show

that to be eligible for appointment in clerical cadre, the minimum 6 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.206 of 2021

qualification would be a pass in SSC/SSLC/Matriculation. The said Clause

does not lay down that a person possessing SSC/SSLC/Matriculation

would be eligible to be considered for appointment only in clerical cadre

and not in sub-staff cadre. We are of the considered opinion that there is

no embargo for the bank to appoint a person who requires

compassionate appointment, in any post to which he is found eligible. In

the absence of such embargo, if the respondent/writ petitioner was found

not suitable for the post of Clerk, to which he is eligible in terms of the

qualification prescribed in the Scheme, he should have been considered

for appointment to any other post. If the Clause 5(iv)(a) of the Scheme

is understood to mean that the person possessing the qualification

required for a post should be considered for appointment only to that

post and not to any other post even in lower cadre, such understanding

will frustrate the very purpose for which the Scheme for providing

compassionate appointment is envisaged.

9. In M. Mahesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment

arose when the particular Scheme in that case was in force under which

the writ petitioner therein was not found to be eligible for compassionate

appointment and that his case could not be considered as per the

subsequent scheme. In Promila (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reiterated the proposition laid down in M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) that

relevant scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee is

applicable. In the instant case, there is no issue with regard to

applicability of the Scheme which was in force.

                                        7                             HCJ & NJS, J
                                                              W.A.No.206 of 2021

10. In the case of Amit Shrivas (supra), the issue was whether a

junior work-charged employee would be entitled to compassionate

appointment. The High Court had directed consideration of the case of

the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment. His claim for

compassionate appointment was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

on the ground that he was not a regular Government employee within the

meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct Rules,

1965. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that High Court had

lost sight of the distinction between a permanent status and a regular

status. This case also, in our opinion, has no relevance in the factual

matrix presented before us.

11. So far as the contention that nearly 22 years have gone by from

the date of death of the father of the respondent/writ petitioner and,

therefore, the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate

appointment needs no consideration at this length of time is concerned,

we are unable to accept the said contention. At the earliest point of time,

the mother of the respondent/writ petitioner had approached the

authorities of the bank for compassionate appointment of the

respondent/writ petitioner, which was rejected on most untenable

grounds prompting the respondent/writ petitioner to assail such rejection

of compassionate appointment to him. Even in the second round of

consideration, the bank had rejected his case on unjustifiable ground, as

held by the learned single Judge and affirmed by us. The respondent/writ

petitioner cannot be denied his right to compassionate appointment

accrued under the Scheme, for the delay that had occasioned over which

he had no control. It is not in dispute that on the date of consideration, 8 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.206 of 2021

he was in requirement of compassionate appointment. In these

circumstances, we see no good ground to take a view that only because

of lapse of considerable time, he should be denied compassionate

appointment.

12. For the reasons and discussions noted above, we find no good

ground to interfere with the order under appeal and, accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          NINALA JAYASURYA, J


                                                                          IBL