Karnataka High Court

Smt. K Lakshmi vs Canara Bank on 20 February, 2024

                           1                            R
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

      WRIT PETITION NO.27347 OF 2023(S-RES)

BETWEEN:

     SMT. K LAKSHMI
     D/O LATE SHRI KAVERAPPA M
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     R/AT DOOR NO.101,
     CHICKABEGURU, BEGUR POST,
     BANGALORE SOUTH
     BENGALURU-560068

                                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     CANARA BANK
       HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.112, JC ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560002
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
       AND CEO

2.     CANARA BANK
       PM SECTION, HR WING, NO.112, JC ROAD
       BENGALURU-560002
       REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
                                2



3.    CANARA BANK
      HRC SECTION CIRCLE OFFICE, NO.86,
      SPENCER TOWERS, MG ROAD
      BENGALURU-560001
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE      LETTER    DTD        15.06.2023      BEARING    NO.
BLC/HRM/20295/E.12/2023 ISSUED BY THE R-3 (ANNX-B)
THE   LETTER      DTD    5.10.2023     BEARING    REF    NO.
BLC/HRM/20366/E.12/2023 ISSUED BY THE R-3 (ANNX-F)
AND   LETTER      DTD    10.10.2023    BEARING     REF   NO.
HRWPM/3B/7668/2023/SS ISSUED BY R-2 (ANNX-G) AND
DIRECT     THE    R-1    TO    GRANT       APPOINTMENT   ON
COMPASSIONATE      GROUNDS TO          THE PETITIONER     AS
SOUGHT FOR BY HER IN HER REPRESENTATIONS DTD
29.05.2023 NIL AND 18.09.2023 (PLACES AS ANNX-A, C
AND D, E RESPECTIVELY).


      THIS   PETITION      HAVING      BEEN    HEARD     AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3


                             ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by married

daughter of deceased employee assailing the letter

dated 15.6.2023 issued by respondent No.3 as per

Annexure-B; letter dated 5.10.2023 issued by

respondent No.3 and the letter dated 10.10.2023

issued by respondent No.2, rejecting the application

filed by petitioner seeking appointment on

compassionate grounds.

2. Petitioner's father was serving in

respondent-Bank as a Clerk who died in harness on

6.10.2022. Petitioner submitted an application for

compassionate appointment. Respondent-Bank vide

endorsement dated 15.6.2023 as per Annexure-B,

letter dated 5.10.2023 as per Annexure-F and letter

dated 10.10.2023 as per Annexure-G has rejected the

application on the ground that petitioner is a married

daughter and therefore, cannot claim to be dependant

on her father.

3. The petitioner is assailing the impugned

letters as per Annexures-"B, F and G" on following

grounds:

"1. The instant petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, who is a married daughter of a deceased employee of the Respondent bank, being aggrieved by the rejection of compassionate appointment on the sole ground that she is married.

2. The scheme for compassionate appointment of the Respondent bank considers dependent family members for compassionate appointment as defined in the following terms:

"The term dependant family member means

3.1.1 Spouse, or

3.1.2 Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or

3.1.3 Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or

3.1.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee."

3. The scheme does not, in its terms, exclude married daughter from the ambits of the term 'dependent family member', and any daughter is entitled if she is wholly dependent. Hence, the test is of dependence and not of marital status. In view of the fact that the objective of compassionate appointment is beneficial, the fact that unmarried daughters have not been excluded from the definition of 'dependant family member must be given a literal, purposive and beneficial Interpretation.

4. That the Respondent bank has violated the scheme and issued impugned letter stating that "married daughter is not covered under compassionate appointment scheme norms"

(Annexure F at Page 26 of the Petition]. The Respondent has not tested dependency of the Petitioner as per applicable norms.

5. That on facts, the Petitioner is a wholly dependant daughter and the following aspects have been pleaded:

a. Prior to the death of her father, the Petitioner's parents were living with her and her family.

b. The husband of the Petitioner is a street vendor, and his earning is totally insufficient to meet the needs of the family.

c. The Petitioner has three daughters aged 11 years, 5 years and 3 years respectively.

d. The Petitioner was wholly dependent on the earnings of her father, Late Shri Kaverappa M for the subsistence of her family and herself.

The Petitioner has been unable to secure gainful employment.

e. Prior to his death, the Petitioner's father had taken loans to the extent of 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) which are required to be repaid.

f. The Petitioner is also taking care of her mother, who is residing with her, without any assistance.

g. The pension amounts being received by the petitioner's mother are wholly insufficient to meet the needs of the family, and the family is in a situation of dire penury.

h. Prior to the death of the Late Shri Kaverappa M, the Petitioner's mother met a tragic road accident and was seriously injured, and has been rendered immobile. Huge debts have also been incurred in this regard. Hence, she nominated the petitioner to be appointed for compassionate appointment.

i. Petitioner is aged 34 years and has B.Com qualification, and is ready to accept any suitable post.

4. In support of her contention, she has

placed reliance on the following judgments:

"1. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Purnima Das - (2017) 4CALLT238 (HC).

2. State of UP Vs. Neha Srivastava - (Order of the Supreme Court dated 23.07.2019 in SLP (C) 22646/2016).

3. Boppana Padmanjani Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh - MANU/AP/2133/2022.

4. State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amarjit Kaur - MANU/PH/0045/2023.

5. Satyabhama Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and

Ors - MANU/OR/1355/2023."

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondents-Bank has countered the claim of the

petitioner. While supporting the impugned letter, he

would contend that petitioner's claim is rejected not

on the ground that she is a married daughter, but on

the ground that she being a married daughter cannot

claim as a dependant daughter. By filing a memo, he

has brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner's

mother has received terminal benefits i.e. SPF,

gratuity, differential SPF, PL Encashment and GTLI

Policy. In the said memo, the details of the pension

received by the petitioner's mother is also indicated.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents-

Bank has relied on following judgments:

"1.Indian Bank and others Vs. Promila and another - (2020) 2 SCC 729.

2.W.P.No.11957/2023 [Megha J .vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India]

3.W.A.No.891/2023 [Megha J .vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India]

4.Civil Appeal No.6938/2022 [State of Maharashtra & Another .vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate]

5.Civil Appeal No.5122/2011 [The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and another .vs. V. Somyashree]"

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned counsel appearing for respondents-Bank.

8. The judgments cited by the learned counsel

for the petitioner are not applicable to the present set

of facts. The petitioner's contention that the

letter/endorsement rejecting petitioner's

representation on the ground that she is a married

daughter leads to discrimination on the ground of

gender and therefore, contravenes Article 15 of the

Constitution.

9. The respondents-Bank has formulated a

compassionate appointment scheme. Clause (3) of

the said Scheme reads as under:

"3. Dependent Family Member:

3.1.1 Spouse; or

3.1.2 Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or

3.1.3 Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or

3.1.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee."

10. On bare perusal of the definition of the

term "dependant family member", which is culled out

supra, it no where discriminates between a son and a

daughter. Eligibility to seek appointment on

compassionate ground when it comes to the legal

heirs of the deceased is rather simplified by the Bank

under the scheme. The eligibility criteria to seek

appointment either for a son or a daughter is

contemplated under clause 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. The

scheme clearly contemplates that whether a son or a

daughter, needs to be wholly dependant to seek

appointment on compassionate grounds.

11. The respondents-Bank, while determining

the eligibility of petitioner, having found that she is a

married daughter has rejected the application on the

ground that she is not wholly dependant on the

deceased. While asserting her eligibility and her

dependency, if the authority has looked into her

marital status, that in itself will not constitute a

discrimination.

12. The petitioner's plea regarding the financial

circumstances of her husband, including his

occupation as a street vendor, and her assertion that

he is unable to maintain her, cannot serve as grounds

for compassionate appointment. Such pleas, although

sympathetic, are not germane to the eligibility criteria

for compassionate appointment, which primarily

revolves around the immediate financial crisis faced

by the family following the demise of the deceased.

13. Furthermore, it is pertinent to draw upon

the judgment of the division bench of this Court in the

case of Mrs. Megha.J .vs. Life Insurance

Corporation of India (LIC) and another

[W.A.No.891/2023(S-RES),DD.27.9.2023], which

elucidates the legal interpretation of dependency and

the rationale behind precluding married daughters

from eligibility for compassionate appointment. Para 4

of the judgment reads as under:

"4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR 2022 SC 5176 to the effect that a married daughter residing in the matrimonial home ordinarily cannot be treated as a dependent on her father. Our scriptures injunct "bharta rakshati yavvane..." literally meaning that it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance to his dependent wife. That is how our legislations too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all regardless of religions), Sections 24 & 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in a broad sense of the term), Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (applicable to Christians), Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of religion and marital status), Sections 36 & 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have been structured. No binding rule or ruling that guarantees right of maintenance to the married daughter residing with the husband qua the father, is brought to our notice."

The judgment emphasizes the duty of a husband to

provide maintenance to his wife and reaffirms the

principle that compassionate appointment is intended

to alleviate the immediate financial distress of the

deceased's family, rather than confer entitlements or

privileges based on marital status.

14. The petitioner's argument posits parity

between married/unmarried daughters and married

sons in the context of compassionate appointment

eligibility. However, this assertion overlooks the

fundamental distinction between inheritance rights

and compassionate appointment criteria. While the

principle of equality among daughters and sons may

find resonance in matters of inheritance or succession,

it does not translate directly to eligibility for

compassionate appointment. The principles governing

compassionate appointment eligibility pivot on

considerations of dependency, financial need, and the

humanitarian imperative to alleviate acute distress,

rather than notions of birthright or inheritance.

Therefore, the petitioner's plea for parity between

married/unmarried daughters and married sons in the

context of compassionate appointment lacks legal

merit and is not supported by the prevailing legal

framework.

15. Furthermore, the eligibility for

compassionate appointment is contingent upon a

demonstration of severe hardship and an inability to

maintain oneself or one's family in the absence of the

deceased. Importantly, the eligibility criteria for

compassionate appointment do not draw a distinction

between married/unmarried daughters and married

sons. Instead, the focus is on identifying individuals

who were dependent on the deceased for their day-to-

day expenses and who would consequently face

significant financial adversity in the absence of the

deceased's support. Therefore, the object of

compassionate appointment is firmly rooted in

addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by

families following the demise of a family member,

without conferring appointment as a matter of right or

inheritance. This principle transcends marital

distinctions and is guided by the overarching objective

of extending support to individuals who are genuinely

in need due to their dependency on the deceased for

day-to-day expenses.

16. Additionally, it is worth noting that the

dependents of the deceased have already obtained

terminal benefits. The counsel for the respondent-

bank has submitted the specifics of the terminal

benefits and pension received by the deceased's wife.

It would be beneficial for this court to extract the

aforementioned memo, which reads as under:

"SN Terminal benefits Amount in Rs. Date of Credit 1 Gratuity 6,80,732.12/- 29.11.2022 2 SPF 4,59,951/- 27.10.2022 3 Differential SPF 5,667/- 31.03.2023 4 PL Encashment 3,02,706.49/- 27.02.2023 5 GTLI Policy 15,00,000/- 16.11.2022

Further, Smt.Ratnamma W/o Late Kaverappa is receiving monthly family pension of Rs.28,272/- per month (As December, 2023)."

These benefits, presumably provided by the

deceased's employer, are typically intended to provide

a measure of financial security to the family following

the employee's demise. This monthly family pension

represents a significant source of financial support for

the deceased's family. It is intended to provide

ongoing financial assistance to the family following the

loss of the deceased's income. Given the existence of

this substantial monthly pension, coupled with the

receipt of terminal benefits, it can be reasonably

inferred that the financial needs of the deceased's

family, are being adequately met.