Telangana High Court
Ms. Boda Deepthi Naik vs Syndicate Bank on 11 February, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WRIT PETITION No. 43094 of 2018
Between:
Boda Deepthi Naik
... Petitioner
and
Syndicate Bank,
rep. by its Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer
and others.
...Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 11-02-2025
Submitted for Approval:
Hon'ble Sri Justice NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Whether Reporters of Local newspapers No
may be allowed to see the judgments ?
Whether copies of judgment may be Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
Whether His Lordship wish to No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
_____________________________
(NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J)
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 43094 OF 2018
% Dated 11.02.2025
Between:
# Boda Deepthi Naik
... Petitioner
and
Syndicate Bank,
rep. by its Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer
and others.
...Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Jyotshna Devi
On behalf of Sri V. Ravichandran
^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri A. Krishnam Raju
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021
(2020) 2 SCC 729
(2014) 13 SCC 583
(2010) 11 SCC 661
(2020) 7 SCC 617
2007(9) SCC 571
(2019) 5 SCC 600
(2019) 3 SCC 653
(2020) 10 SCC 496
2023 SCC Online SC 745
2023 SCC Online SC 219
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 43094 OF 2018
O R D E R:
Petitioner, who claims to be the daughter of Late
Boda Sudhakar, Employee No. 413352, Ex-Senior Manager,
Hyderabad, M.J. Road Currency Chest, died in harness on
15.04.2017, seeks appointment on compassionate grounds in
clerical cadre. According to her, rejection order passed by the 3rd
respondent - Chief Manager (HR), Syndicate Bank, Manipal
dated 23.03.2018 has no application to her claim.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner Ms. Jyotshna Devi
appearing on behalf of Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel on
record, submits that on the death of her father on 15.04.2017,
petitioner made Application for compassionate appointment
which was rejected vide order dated 23.03.2018 on the ground
that as per Circular No. 062/2018/BC, dated 31.01.2018,
appointment on compassionate grounds may be provided to the
dependent family of the employee, who dies in service, subject
to satisfying the condition that family is indigent and deserves
immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and
where the total income of the family from all sources is below
Rs.35,000/- per month; since monthly notional interest income
on terminal benefits and investment proceeds is Rs.19,421/-
and monthly pension from the bank of the deceased is
Rs.23,912/- ,totalling Rs.43,333/-, which exceeds ceiling limit
of Rs.35,000/-, she is not eligible for appointment on
compassionate ground / lump sum ex gratia amount. Learned
counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in The Secretary to Govt., Department of Education
(Primary) v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa 1 to submit that
interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme
should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such
as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable
factor. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Promila 2, wherein also it
has been held that claim for compassionate appointment must
be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on
date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot
be looked into.
(2020) 2 SCC 729
3. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent bank Sri A. Krishnam Raju, relying on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MGB Gramin Bank
vs. Chakrawarti Singh 3, SBI vs. Rajkumar 4 , N.C. Santhosh
v. State of Karnataka 5, State Bank of India v. Jaspal
Kaur 6, State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari 7, State
of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar 8, contends that there
can be no immediate or automatic appointment on
compassionate grounds merely upon Application; several
factors, including eligibility and financial condition, are to be
considered up to the date of assessment. It is further contended
that the bank has right to modify or abolish the compassionate
appointment scheme at any time, subject to its policies,
financial constraints, and post availability, hence, petitioner has
no vested right to compassionate appointment, as pending
Applications are processed according to the latest applicable
Scheme.
(2014) 13 SCC 583
(2010) 11 SCC 661
(2020) 7 SCC 617
(2007) 9 SCC 571
(2019) 5 SCC 600
(2019) 3 SCC 653
4. In the light of the pleadings, arguments and the
legal position, the point that arises for consideration is whether
the case of petitioner can be considered for compassionate
appointment vis-à-vis the Scheme which was in vogue at the
time when her father died or subsequent to that.
5. To decide the said issue, it is necessary to refer the
Circular dated 08.04.2015 (old scheme) on which petitioner
places reliance to seek appointment. It states the eligibility
criteria as the family is indigent and deserves immediate
assistance for relief from financial destitution besides acquiring
educational qualification and age limit, etcetera, stated therein.
Admittedly, petitioner has requisite qualification and age
bracket. On the other hand, Circular dated 31.01.2018 based
on which respondent bank rejected the claim of petitioner
stipulates, in addition to the conditions in old scheme, that total
income of family from all sources should be below Rs.35,000/-
per month; revised scheme shall come into force with
retrospective effect from 05.08.2014 and the cases of employees
who died while in service on or after the same date would be
dealt with in accordance with the revised scheme.
6. The law on this point is very clear from the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bheemesh Alias
Bheemappa's case (referred to supra). In the said judgment,
the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the dicta laid down in
earlier judgments in Jaspal Kaur's case, Raj Kumar's case,
Chakrawarti Singh's case, M. Mahesh Kumar's case,
Promila's case, N.C. Santosh's case (referred to supra), State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas 9 and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi and held that 'interpretation as to
the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a
determinate land fixed criteria such as the date of death and not
an indeterminate and variable factor'. In view of the said
principle, undoubtedly, the Scheme prevalent at the time of
death of employee is to be taken as factor to determine the
eligibility of petitioner.
7. Learned Standing Counsel also referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda v.
Baljit Singh 10 and State of West Bengal v. Debabrata
(2020) 10 SCC 496
2023 SCC Online SC 745
Tiwari 11 but the facts and circumstances in those cases are not
akin to the case on hand, hence, they need not be looked into.
8. Further, it is to be seen that respondent bank has
denied the claim of petitioner as the monthly income exceeded
Rs.35,000/-, on hypothetical assumptive calculation that she
would be getting notional interest on terminal benefits.
Admittedly, the said stipulation was not there in the old
scheme. In that regard, petitioner in her affidavit averred that
her deceased father is survived by unmarried daughter
(petitioner), wife, unmarried brother and aged mother at that
time and they have to meet the expenses for their education,
medicines, marriage, etcetera from those terminal benefits.
Hence, it cannot be said that they would be getting fixed interest
on the terminal benefits forever. Apart from that, though bank
in their counter stated that petitioner has been enjoying income
on other sources ie. immovable assets, they did not file a piece
of paper in support thereof. Therefore, it is unjust to say that
petitioner's case does not fit in the ceiling fixed by the new
Scheme.
2023 SCC Online SC 219
9. In the light of the discussion supra, viewed from
any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that Writ
Petition deserves to be allowed as petitioner's case is entitled to
be considered as per Circular dated 08.04.2015.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs.
11. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
11th February 2025
Mark LR copy
ksld
