Madras High Court
K.Vinoth Kumar vs The Chief Manager (Hrm) on 8 February, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.21241 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Writ Petition (MD)No.21241 of 2017
K.Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Manager (HRM),
Indian Bank,
Corporate Office, HRM Department,
254 – 260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Chennai 600 014.
2.The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
Ganapathi Agraharam Branch,
6-50/1, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Ganapathi Agraharam,
Thanjavur.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file
of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection
passed by him vide his proceedings in No. Nil dated 19.09.2017 and quash the
same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct him to appoint the
petitioner in any suitable post, based on his educational qualification under
compassionate ground in the light of Clause 82 of 17(v) of the Scheme for
compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
W.P.(MD).No.21241 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For R2 : Mr. Pala Ramasamy
Standing counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of
rejection passed by the first respondent, dated 19.09.2017 and to quash the
same and consequently, direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in
any suitable post, based on his educational qualification, under compassionate
ground, in the light of Clause 82 of 17(v) of the Scheme for compassionate
appointment in Public Sector Banks.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as Office
Assistant in the second respondent Office and died in harness on 03.09.2012,
leaving behind the petitioner, wife and his daughter as legal heirs. Hence, the
mother of the petitioner has made a representation to the second respondent on
04.02.2015, seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner or his sister.
Moreover, the petitioner has made several representations to the second
respondent. However, the first respondent has rejected the same on 19.09.2017,
on the ground that there is no Scheme available between 2012 and 2014, for
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.21241 of 2017
providing compassionate appointment. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
though there is no Scheme available between 2012 and 2014 for providing
compassionate appointment, in the interregnum, the respondent Bank has to
provide ex-gratia amount to the deceased family. However, neither the ex-gratia
amount nor the compassionate appointment provided to the petitioner. Hence,
the order impugned in the present writ petition cannot be sustained. Further,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank and another vs. M.Mahesh Kumar in
Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008, dated 15.05.2015.
4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent
would submit that admittedly, between 2012 and 2014, there is no Scheme for
compassionate appointment and the petitioner is entitled only for an ex-gratia
amount and even for ex-gratia amount, the petitioner did not make any
application, at the relevant point of time. The petitioner's mother has made an
application for compassionate appointment only on 04.02.2015. Though the
Scheme for providing compassionate appointment again came on 05.08.2014,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.21241 of 2017
the petitioner's representation was rejected, on the ground that there is no
provision available at the relevant point of time. Hence, this Court may remand
the matter back to the first respondent and permit the petitioner to make a fresh
representation claiming the ex-gratia amount or compassionate appointment
and if such a representation is received, the same will be considered, as per the
existing Scheme available.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel
for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the
petitioner's father died on 03.09.2012 and at the relevant point of time, there is
no Scheme available for providing compassionate appointment. However, there
is a provision available for awarding ex-gratia amount and it is also an admitted
fact that the petitioner's mother has made the application on 04.02.2015 and the
said application is well within the period of three years. The above decision
referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case and the relevant portion of the judgment cited supra is
as follows.
“14. It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme providing
only for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.21241 of 2017
stands superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which has revived the
Scheme providing for compassionate appointment. As on date, now
the scheme in force is to provide compassionate appointment. Under
these circumstances, the appellant bank is not justified in contending
that the application for compassionate appointment of the
respondent cannot be considered in view of passage of time.
17. Considering the scope of the Scheme Dying in Harness
Scheme 1993 then in force and the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant bank to
reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate
appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993)
then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting
interference.”
7. Following the above cited decision, this Court is inclined to set aside
the order impugned in the writ petition. Accordingly, the order passed by the
first respondent, dated 19.09.2017, is set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the first respondent for fresh consideration and the petitioner is permitted to
make a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is
directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in
accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.21241 of 2017
8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
08.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
akv
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Chief Manager (HRM),
Indian Bank,
Corporate Office, HRM Department,
254 – 260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Chennai 600 014.
2.The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank,
Ganapathi Agraharam Branch,
6-50/1, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Ganapathi Agraharam,
Thanjavur.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.21241 of 2017
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
akv
Writ Petition (MD)No.21241 of 2017
08.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
