Madras High Court
Canara Bank vs A.Arun Prabhu on 28 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala
W.A.(MD) No.2022 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD) No.2022 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.15995 of 2023
1.Canara Bank
represented by its Managing Director
Human Resources Wing
Head Office, 112 J C Road
Bangalore-560 002
2.The General Manager
Canara Bank
Human Resources Wing
Head Office, 112 JC Road
Bangalore-560 002
3.The Assistant General Manager
Human Resources Wing
Head Office, 112 JC Road
Bangalore-560 002
4.The Branch Manager
Canara Bank
Kombai, Theni District ... Appellants
-vs-
A.Arun Prabhu ... Respondent
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2022 of 2023
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 26.07.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.20567 of 2021, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Jeyamohan
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]
Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant – Bank
and Mr.K.Jeyamohan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The respondent filed the writ petition against the order passed
by the appellant – Bank rejecting his application for compassionate
appointment.
3. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned Judgment and
Order, allowed the writ petition, thereby directing the appellant – Bank to
appoint the respondent on compassionate ground in any suitable post within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order i.e. 26.07.2023.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Learned counsel for the appellant – Bank strenuously contends
that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondent is not the
dependent on his deceased father. His father died in the year 2014. The
application was filed by the respondent on 15.04.2015. The said application
was rejected on 12.01.2018. The respondent filed a writ petition before this
Court. This Court set aside the order of rejection and remitted the matter to
the appellants for a decision afresh. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the appellants considered all the aspects of the matter and arrived
at a conclusion that the respondent is not entitled for compassionate
appointment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant – Bank submits that the
respondent had crossed 25 years of age as on the date of the application and
in view of the definition of “family” as embodied in Section 2(o) of the Canara
Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter, referred to as “the
Regulations, 1995”), the application of the respondent could not have been
accepted. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant –
Bank that the respondent was earlier in employment with a Multi National
Company. He has not substantiated that he was wholly dependent upon the
deceased. It is further submitted that the respondent is not an indigent
person. There are three properties i.e. two house properties and one
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agricultural land, admeasuring 0.87 cents, owned by the respondent and his
family members. All these aspects are not considered by the learned Single
Judge in its proper perspective, thereby has arrived at an erroneous
conclusion.
6. We have gone through the Judgment delivered by the learned
Single Judge and also considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel for the parties.
7. The scheme/policy of the appellant – Bank for appointment on
compassionate ground is a beneficial and benevolent policy. The purpose of
compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of
the deceased, who died in harness. The father of the respondent was a Class-
IV employee of the appellant – Bank. He died on 06.10.2014. The respondent
immediately filed an application on 15.04.2015 seeking appointment on
compassionate ground.
8. The policy as applicable as on the date of the application filed for
compassionate appointment would be relevant. Clause-3 of the said scheme
of compassionate appointment specifies the dependent family members. It
includes wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son). The
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent is the natural son of the deceased. It has also been observed that
in the year 2016-2017, the respondent was appointed on daily wage basis by
the appellant – Bank and thereafter, he was removed from service. It is
submitted that prior to the respondent being appointed on daily wage basis by
the appellants, he was in employment of a company. However, nothing is
brought on record to substantiate that after the respondent was removed from
service as a daily wager by the appellant – Bank, he was gainfully employed
elsewhere. The 0.87 cents of land owned by the family of the respondent is a
dry agricultural land, even according to the appellant – Bank. The house
property does not yield any income.
9. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant –
Bank that the son to be a member of the family of the deceased as per the
definition of “family” enshrined in the Regulations, 1995 is that he should be
less than 25 years of age. We cannot import the provisions of the Pension
Rules while applying the scheme for compassionate appointment. The scheme
for compassionate appointment is a complete policy in itself. The said scheme
does not restrict the definition of dependent son to be less than 25 years of
age.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Learned counsel for the appellant – Bank further submits that
as per the scheme for compassionate appointment, discretion vests with the
appellant – Bank either to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground
or to grant him ex gratia payment.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the discretion exists either to appoint the respondent on compassionate
ground or to grant him ex gratia payment is not an ordinary or unregulated
discretion. But, it is a discretion that has to be exercised judiciously and in a
reasonable manner. While rejecting the application for compassionate
appointment, the appellant – Bank did not come forward and say that they are
ready to pay ex gratia payment to the respondent. But, rejected the
application for compassionate appointment on the sole ground that the
respondent is not the dependent of the deceased. The appellant – Bank
cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. The appellant – Bank is a
Nationalized Bank. It is an instrumentality of the State. The instrumentality
of the State is expected to be a model litigant.
12. In the light of the above, the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error in passing the impugned Judgment. As nine years have
lapsed after the death of the deceased and the respondent has not yet been
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given employment on compassionate ground, the appellant - Bank shall be
compassionate at least now to give appointment to the respondent. The
appointment order shall be issued expeditiously, preferably within a period of
four weeks from today.
14. The writ appeal, as such, is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.V.G., .C.J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]
28.11.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
krk
and
28.11.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
