Harijith J.K vs State Bank Of Travancore
2021 Latest Caselaw 10512 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

     MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E)


PETITIONER/S:

                HARIJITH J.K.
                BLOCK NO.45, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY P.O.,
                PACHA, PALODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 562.

                BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
                RE. BY GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, POST BOX NO.34,
                POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.

      2         ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
                REGION 3, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.

                R1-2 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, STATE BANK OF
                TRAVANCORE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E)     ..2..




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of March 2021

The petitioner's father M.Jenardhanan while

working as D.C.C.P at State Bank of Travancore,

Madathara Branch expired on 10.06.2004. The

deceased was survived by his wife, mother, two sons

of which the petitioner is the eldest and a daughter.

The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment

before the respondent Bank vide Ext.P2 application

dated 28.02.2005. According to the petitioner, though

he filed Ext.P2 application before the Assistant

General Manager of the respondent Bank shortly after

his father's demise, the said application was not

considered and the petitioner was not intimated about

the fate of the said application though he met the WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..3..

officers of the respondent Bank in person several

times. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ

petition for directing the respondents to appoint him

in the post of Peon in the respondent Bank and for a

declaration that the petitioner is in all respect eligible

for appointment under the compassionate

appointment scheme.

2. A statement dated 12.10.2015 is filed on

behalf of the respondents wherein, it is stated that the

Managing Director of the respondent Bank has

rejected the request of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment as he did not come within

the parameter of the scheme for appointment on

compassionate grounds. It is stated that the decision

of the Managing Director, rejecting the application of

the petitioner for compassionate appointment was

informed to the petitioner from the Madathara Branch

of the respondent Bank, where the petitioner's father WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..4..

had last worked. It is further stated that the writ

petition was filed after 8 years after the death of the

employee and therefore liable to be dismissed on that

short ground.

3. A counter affidavit sworn in by the Assistant

General Manager (HR) of State Bank of India is also

placed on record, wherein it is stated that during the

pendency of the writ petition the respondent Bank

has been acquired by the State Bank of India under

Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, w.e.f

01.04.2017. The counter affidavit is filed reiterating

the stand of the 1st respondent in the statement dated

12.10.2015. It is stated that the petitioner's father did

not have unblemished service records and is not

entitled for compassionate appointment as per the

scheme for compassionate appointment followed by

the Bank. It is further stated that Ext.P2 application

of the petitioner has been rejected by the Managing WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..5..

Director of the Bank and was informed to the Deputy

General Manager, Thiruvananthapuram who in turn

had informed the Branch Manager of Madathara

Branch where the petitioner's father had last worked

and the same was communicated to the petitioner

from Madathara Branch of the Bank. It is stated that

the application of the petitioner was rejected 7 years

back and the writ petition filed after 7 years shall not

be entertained. The circular that deals with the

scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds is

also produced along with the counter affidavit.

According to the respondents, the object of granting

compassionate appointment is to enable the family of

the deceased employee to tide over the sudden

financial crisis and the family of the deceased was not

living in penury so as to make the petitioner eligible

for grant of compassionate appointment. Therefore,

the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..6..

petition.

4. Head the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

till date, the petitioner has not been served with any

communication rejecting Ext.P2 application and till

the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had been

knocking at the doors of the respondents for

employment under the compassionate scheme. The

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is still unemployed and finds it difficult to eke a living

with the coolie work he may get on certain days.

6. The learned standing counsel for the

respondents contend that the petitioner has

approached the Court after 7 years after the rejection

of his application for compassionate appointment.

WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..7..

Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court in Manager, Naduvathur U.P.School and

Another v. Bijeesh K. and Others [2019(3) KHC

472], the learned standing counsel submitted that the

whole object of granting compassionate appointment

is to enable the family to tide over the sudden

financial crisis and that the object is not to give a

member of such family a post, much less a post for

the post held by the deceased. The counsel also

relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in

Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Others

[2009(6)SCC 481], wherein it was held that the

object of compassionate appointment is to provide

immediate financial assistance to the family, who has

lost its bread winner and the request for appointment

on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and

proximate to the time of death of the bread-earner of

the family.

WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..8..

7. Usually, this Court would have dismissed the

writ petition taking note of the long delay in filing the

writ petition. The writ petition is filed after more than

7 years after the death of the father of the petitioner.

However, it has to be noted that though the

respondents have stated that Ext.P2 application of the

petitioner has been rejected, no order or any

communication rejecting the same application is

produced either with the statement dated 12.10.2015

or with the counter affidavit dated 09.06.2020. It is

stated that the Managing Director of the respondent

Bank had rejected the application for compassionate

appointment of the petitioner and the same was

informed to the Deputy General Manager,

Trivandrum, who in turn had informed the Branch

Manager of the Madathara Branch, where the

petitioner's father had last worked and the same was

communicated to the petitioner from the Madathara WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..9..

Branch of the respondent Bank. None of the aforesaid

communications are produced by the respondents

before this Court.

8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his

application for compassionate appointment is not

considered by the respondents and that he has been

approaching the respondents for getting relief and

that the respondents did not even send a reply to his

request for compassionate appointment. Apart from

the statement of the respondents that the application

of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has

been rejected by the Managing Director, no details

whatsoever, not even the date of such proceedings

and the details of the communications issued by the

office of the Managing Directer to the Deputy General

Manager, Deputy General Manager to the Branch

Manager, Branch Manager to the petitioner are stated

in the statement/counter affidavit.

WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..10..

9. This is not a case where there was delay on

the part of the petitioner in approaching the

respondents for employment under the dying in

harness scheme. The father of the petitioner expired

on 10.06.2004 and Ext.P2 application was made on

28.02.2005. Therefore, the petitioner had made

request for appointment on compassionate grounds

within a reasonable period. Going by Ext. P1 caste

certificate, the petitioner belongs to schedule caste

community. He has studied upto 10 th standard and

has not passed SSLC. When the respondents have

taken a stand that Ext.P2 application has been

rejected, they could have very well produced the said

order or any communication in that regard along with

their statement dated 12.10.2015 or along with the

counter affidavit dated 09.06.2020. No document is

produced to show that the petitioner was ever

intimated about the fate of his application for WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..11..

compassionate appointment. Therefore, the

respondents cannot seek dismissal of the writ petition

on the ground of delay or laches on the part of the

petitioner in filing the writ petition. According to the

counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was all along

under the impression that the respondents would

consider his request for employment under the

compassionate scheme as no order was

communicated to him rejecting his application and

finally when no orders were forthcoming on Ext.P2

application, the writ petition was filed.

10. Since the application of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment was filed within a

reasonable time and that the respondents have not

placed on record any order or communication

rejecting Ext.P2 application for compassionate

appointment, this Court finds it appropriate to direct

the 1st respondent; the State Bank of India through WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E) ..12..

its competent officer to consider Ext.P2 application of

the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh,

in accordance with law, within a period of three

months from today. It is specifically noticed that this

Court has not gone into the eligibility or other merits

of the petitioner's claim in Ext. P2; but only directed

consideration of the application of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

                               MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,
                                       JUDGE

     SB
 WP(C).No.22244 OF 2012(E)       ..13..


                            APPENDIX

     PETITIONERS EXTS:

     EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE

ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGADU DATED 27.3.2012

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.2.2005

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.5.2015

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1A TRUE COPY OF STAFF CIRCULAR NO.7/2006 DATED 08/02/2006

EXHIBIT R1B TRUE COPY OF STAFF CIRCULAR NO.19/2012 DATED 12/03/2012.

EXHIBIT R1C TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.40/2012 DATED 11/09/2012.

EXHIBIT R1D TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.PAD/22/2013 DATED 03/10/2013.

EXHIBIT R1E TRUE COPY OF BANK CIRCULAR NO.27/2011 DATED 04/08/2011.

//true copy //

P.A to Judge