Soundarya vs State Bank Of India Sbi
2023 Latest Caselaw 8912 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 21787 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          SOUNDARYA, AGED 27 YEARS,
          D/O LATE SREEKUMAR P N,
          CHAMAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          OPPOSITE TO MADHAV TEMPLE,
          ASHTAMICHIRA, MALA, THRISSUR - 680731.

          BY ADV NIDHI BALACHANDRAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE BANK OF INDIA,
          REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGIONAL MANAGER,
          REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-3,
          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR,
          SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

    2     GEETHADEVI, REVATHI NIVAS,
          AMALA NAGAR, KIZHAKKUM BHAGAM VILLAGE,
          KANJOOR (P.O), ALUVA - 683575.

          SRI.JITHESH MENON
          SRI.P.GOPAL, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21787 OF 2023
                                    -2-

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that her father,

Sri.Sreekumar P.N., died while serving the 1st

respondent - State Bank of India; and that,

under the applicable Compassionate Appointment

Scheme, she is eligible to be appointed under

them. She alleges that, however, when she made

such application, it was rejected through

Ext.P4, saying that the 2nd respondent - who is

alleged to be the second wife of her father -

has also made such a claim and that unless they

arrive at a settlement, or obtain an order from

a Court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be

considered.

2. Sri.Nidhi Balachandran - learned counsel

for the petitioner, vehemently argued that

Ext.P4 is in error because, the Bank could not

have asked his client to enter into a settlement

with the 2nd respondent, who is alleged to be the WP(C) NO. 21787 OF 2023

second wife of her late father whom he is stated

to have married, subsequent to the divorce from

her mother. He contended that, therefore, Ext.P4

is illegal and hence, that the Bank is obliged

to consider his client's claim on its merits.

3. Sri.P.Gopal - learned Standing Counsel

for the 1st respondent, in response, submitted

that his client is incapacitated from

considering the petitioner's claim because of

the afore reasons, particularly when the 2nd

respondent claims to be the legally wedded wife

of her deceased father. He explained that, as

per the applicable Rules and Regulations

governing the field of Compassionate Appointment

in the Bank, petitioner will have to establish a

better right than the 2nd respondent, if she is

to claim employment; and that this can be done

only through a court of law. He thus prayed that

this writ petition be dismissed. WP(C) NO. 21787 OF 2023

4. I have examined Ext.P4, which is the

order impugned in this writ petition, juxtaposed

on the rival submissions as afore.

5. As rightly pointed out by Sri.Nidhi

Balachandran - learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ext.P4 says that petitioner must

either enter into a compromise with the 2 nd

respondent, or that she should obtain an order

from a court of law, but without explaining what

kind of order she is expected to obtain.

6. That said, the advice of the Bank to the

petitioner, to have a compromise with the 2 nd

respondent, perhaps is not one that can be

accepted in law; though the question whether she

should obtain an order from a court of law is

one that ought to have been assessed and

informed to her specifically by the Bank,

particularly as to the nature of such and from

what jurisdiction.

WP(C) NO. 21787 OF 2023

7. As matters now stand, the petitioner's

application is pending, and the Bank asserts

that there is also a rival application made by

the 2nd respondent. Normally, going by the

applicable Scheme, it would have been possible

for the Bank to assess who among the two

claimants is better eligible to claim the

employment, and one fails to understand why it

was not done while Ext.P4 was issued.

8. Of course, if the Bank still finds that

parties must obtain an order from a court of

law, it can certainly issue an order to that

effect, but only after assessing the legal

aspects involved.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and set aside Ext.P4; with a

consequential direction to the competent

Authority of the 1st respondent to hear the

petitioner, as also the 2nd respondent, and WP(C) NO. 21787 OF 2023

assess their rival claims; culminating in an

appropriate fresh order, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that the afore observations

of this Court are only meant to be directory in

nature; and that a final decision in this regard

can be taken by the 1st respondent, edificed on

all applicable and germane inputs, including the

Statutory Scheme.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 21787 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21787/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 3/12/95 OF THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 29/11/22

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 9/2/23 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING THAT SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF SRI SREEKUMAR P N

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO RM/RBO-III/EKM/HR/2022-23/1723 DATED 7/3/23 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/6/23 IN WPC NO 20878/23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT