Karnataka High Court
Deepak S vs The Deputy General Manager Canara Bank on 16 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:2070
WP No. 18291 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 18291 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DEEPAK S
S/O LATE SRI SURESH S
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
NO 118, HOSA BADAVANE, KOORGALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570018
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.THYAGARAJA.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK
HRM SECTION, NO 86, SPENCERS TOWER
Digitally
signed by CIRCLE OFFICE, M G ROAD
CHAITHRA A BENGALURU - 560001
Location:
HIGH 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
COURT OF
CANARA BANK
KARNATAKA
HRM SECTION, NO 86, SPENCERS TOWER
CIRCLE OFFICE, M G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560001
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER
CANARA BANK
VIVEKANAND NAGARA BRANCH
MYSURU - 570023
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:2070
WP No. 18291 of 2022
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO
CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE
J C ROAD, BENGALURU - 560002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENTS DATED 05.10.2020 VIDE BEARING
REF.NO.BLC.HRM.20245/E.12/2020 AS ANNEXURE-A AND
ENDORSEMENT DTD 08.01.2021 AS ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY
THE R2 AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the legal heir of a
deceased employee whose application/representation
seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is
rejected by the respondent-Bank on the ground that the
petitioner being not dependent family member of the
deceased employee is not entitled to seek appointment on
compassionate grounds. The said endorsements vide
Annexures-A and B are under challenge.
NC: 2024:KHC:2070
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents-Bank.
Perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner has completed bachelor of
Engineering in Mechanical Engineering. On account of
untimely death of his father who was serving in
respondent-Bank, the petitioner submitted an
application/representation requesting for compassionate
appointment vide application dated 16.7.2019.
4. The short point that needs consideration is as to
whether the petitioner who is a B.E. Graduate in
Mechanical Engineering is entitled for appointment on
compassionate grounds. The scheme for compassionate
appointment formulated by the respondent-Bank clearly
defines the term 'dependent family member' which
includes spouse, wholly dependent son, wholly dependent
daughter(including legally adopted daughter) and wholly
dependent brother or sister in case of an unmarried
employee. In terms of 3.1.2 of the Scheme for
NC: 2024:KHC:2070
Compassionate appointment, this Court is of the view that
the petitioner being a B.E. Graduate with degree in
Mechanical Engineering cannot be termed as a wholly
dependant son of the deceased employee. The impugned
endorsement under challenge whereby the authorities
have declined to consider the application/representation
submitted by the petitioner is found to be in two folds.
Firstly, the authority taking note of the petitioner's
qualification has come to the conclusion that petitioner
cannot claim to be dependent and the second ground is
that on account of death of the employee, the petitioner's
family has received service benefits to the tune of
Rs.24,47,569/- and the widow of the deceased employee
is receiving pension. The petitioner's counter to the effect
that the family had liability of Rs.20,34,459/- cannot be
acceded to. On examining the details of the outstanding
liability of the family, it is found that the deceased
employee had availed housing loan to the tune of
Rs.9,56,400/-, festival advance of Rs.1,28,938/-. Further,
the deceased employee had also availed vehicle loan. On
NC: 2024:KHC:2070
examining these liabilities, this Court is more than
satisfied that the liabilities do not relate to any financial
distress which led to the employee availing loan from the
Bank. If the deceased employee had availed housing loan,
festival advance and vehicle loan and also had a credit
card facility during his lifetime, the same cannot be
treated as the liability relating to any financial distress or
loans on account of domestic compulsions. If these
significant details are looked into, the impugned
endorsement issued by the authority declining to grant
compassionate appointment does not warrant any
interference at the hands of this Court.
5. Compassionate appointment policy was
developed purely on humanitarian grounds. Such
appointment must be confined strictly in accordance with
the Rules. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has
held that compassionate appointment is not a source of
recruitment. Rather, it is an exception. Such
appointments are to be considered only when the family of
NC: 2024:KHC:2070
the deceased is left in penury without any ostensible
source of income. Recruitment of employees is governed
by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Though Apex Court has carved out an exception in case of
employees who have died while in service or incapacitated
while still in service, in case of such employment, the
authority is bound to stick to the norms laid down under
Articles 14 and 16. More over the objectives underpinning
the compassionate appointment scheme mandate a
stringent threshold for eligibility. The scheme, designed to
alleviate immediate financial distress precipitated by the
demise of an employee, prioritizes assistance to those
confronting severe hardship and an inability to maintain
themselves or their families.
6. Petitioner is an Engineering Graduate. This
discretionary element ensures that compassionate
appointments are granted to those who genuinely face
financial hardship and may struggle to sustain themselves
without the support of the deceased employee's income.
NC: 2024:KHC:2070
The objective is to strike a balance between providing
assistance to those in need and avoiding misuse of the
compassionate appointment provision. In adjudicating the
petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, it is
imperative to meticulously navigate the intricate legal
terrain governing eligibility criteria within the context of
familial dependencies and the overarching objectives of
the compassionate appointment scheme.
7. Interestingly, the learned counsel for the
petitioner while advancing his arguments contended that
on an assurance by respondent-Bank petitioner has
resigned from the job. Therefore, petitioner does not
satisfy the eligibility criteria to be considered for
appointment on compassionate grounds.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,
stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
