Madras High Court
R.Vinoth vs Indian Overseas Bank on 15 June, 2021
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
R.Vinoth .. Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. by its Chief Manager,
Personnel Administration Department,
Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Industrial Relations Department,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3. The Assistant General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Personnel Administration Department,
Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents/Respondents
***
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 07.11.2017 passed in W.P.No.22031 of
2013.
***
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.A.Esakkiappan
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA
SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal
laying challenge to the order dated 07.11.2017 passed in
W.P.No.22031 of 2013.
2. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, his father one
Rajan was working as Messenger in the Mettur Branch of the
respondent Bank and he died on 16.07.1998, while in service ; his
mother submitted a representation on 30.06.1999 seeking
compassionate appointment followed by another application on
28.08.1999 in vain ; a legal notice was sent on behalf of his mother
on 01.03.2004, which was replied on 13.03.2004 stating that the
request of his mother was rejected during the year 2000 itself, so
also his request on the ground that since the services of his father
were not unblemished, the requests for appointment on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
compassionate grounds could not be considered ; when he laid
challenge to the said reply in W.P.No.7170 of 2007, this Court vide
order dated 22.06.2012 set aside the said reply with a direction to
the Deputy General Manager/the second respondent herein, to
consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the guidelines
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
the said order, pursuant to which, an order was passed on
19.12.2012 by the Board of the respondent Bank negativing his
request ; since the said order is not in consonance with the
directions of this Court, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction
to the respondent to send proposal to the Government for
compassionate appointment, as per their own guidelines, which was
negatived by the Writ Court and hence, he is in this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant /
writ petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.
4. The undisputed fact remains the mother of the writ
petitioner submitted the representation seeking compassionate
appointment for herself on 30.06.1999, which, according to him,
yielded no response. Thereafter, she sent a legal notice only on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
01.03.2004, which was replied to on 13.03.2004. Curiously, the writ
petitioner questioned the reply letter in W.P.No.7170 of 2007. No
material is placed before the writ court to show that the petitioner,
who was a minor aged 16 years at the time of demise of his father,
had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, though
there is no dispute qua that claim.
5. It is to be stated that the respondent Bank framed a
scheme in 1979 for providing compassionate appointment for
dependents of employees who die while in service, which was
updated periodically. Clause 3 speaks of the eligibility. Clause 3(a)
mandates that "request for appointment under the scheme should
be received by the Bank at the earliest, in any case not later than
one year from the date of death of the employee". Sub-clauses (b)
and (c) are also relevant and the same are as under :
"b. In case a member of the family sponsored for
appointment desires to wait till he/she attains certain
educational qualification, his/her case may be considered
at the discretion of the Bank within four years of death of
the employee to enable him/her to so qualify provided
that the dependant has made a request to the Bank within
one year of the death of the employee.
c. In case the member's family to be offered
appointment is a minor, the offer of appointment may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
kept open only for a period of four years from the date of
death of employee (Ministry of Finance letter
NO.18/139/95 IR dated 7.8.96) provided that the
dependent has made a request to the bank within one
year of the death of the employee."
6. Admittedly, the mother of the writ petitioner complied
with clause 3(a) supra, by submitting the application within one
year. Even in the legal notice dated 01.03.2004, appointment on
compassionate grounds was sought for only for the mother of the
writ petitioner. Hence, the writ petitioner was estopped from
invoking the above clauses. It is the mother of the writ petitioner,
who alone is entitled to proceed with the request originally made by
her and she cannot change her request or nomination later.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner
submitted that the request of the writ petitioner was rejected on the
ground that his father had no unblemished service and if that is the
case of the respondents, they ought to have referred the request to
the Government with the recommendations of the Board. It is also
submitted that since the mandate of the Compassionate
Appointment Scheme was not adhered to, this Court in W.P.No.7170
of 2007 directed the Bank to consider the claim of the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
petitioner and take a decision and communicate the same to him.
His further submission is that though the Board of the respondents
Bank considered the issue, they failed to refer the request of the
mother of the writ petitioner to the Government with the
recommendations of the Board, which is a non-speaking order
passed without application of mind and hence, the writ petitioner
filed W.P.No.22031 of 2013 seeking a direction to the respondents
to comply with the mandate of their own guidelines, but the Writ
Court failed to consider the order of this Court dated 22.06.2012
made in W.P.No.7170 of 2007. On this ground, the learned counsel
seeks to quash the order impugned.
8. Be that as it may, as stated above, the writ petitioner,
having failed to adhere to the guidelines provided in the scheme, is
not entitled to any indulgence from this Court. The mother of the
petitioner, who had chosen to file the nomination, ought to have
pursued the same within a reasonable time without any delay.
Having failed to do so, the action of the respondents in rejecting the
request of the writ petitioner cannot be found fault with and in such
view of the matter, the writ appeal deserves to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
9. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the order of the Full
Bench of this Court dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.(MD).No.7016 of 2011,
wherein, it was held that the persons seeking compassionate
appointment must make the application without any delay and the
Authority also to consider the same within a reasonable time. As the
compassionate appointment is deviation from the regular procedure
of recruitment intended to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the
family on account of the death of the breadwinner, any such
application made has to be considered within a reasonable period of
time. The Full Bench relied upon the judgment in Bhawani Prasad
Sonkar V. Union of India & Others, (2011) 4 SCC 209, wherein, in
paragraph 20(ii), it was observed as follows :
“(ii) An application for compassionate employment must
be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered
within a reasonable period of time.“
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v.
Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 held as follows :
"20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to
the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being provided at
the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate
employment not being an alternate method of public employment. .....
Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim
benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered
to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank
v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412. It is not for the courts to
substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in
judicial review, as has been recently emphasised by this Court in State
of H.P. v. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285."
From the above, it is clear that the objective of the scheme is only
to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times, the
relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.
11. The writ Court went deep into the issue in hand and
made certain observations. Without delving much into the same, we
are of the view that the impugned order requires no interference,
for the reasons stated hitherto.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
15.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
gg
W.A.No.1289 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
