DUNNA SRINIVASA RAO v. UCO BANK, (A GOVT. UNDERTAKING BANKING)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 3rd respondent herien to provide employment under compassionate ground in pursuance of the Circular No.CHO/PMG/13/2023- 24, dt.20-7-202, forthwith by suspending the rejection proceedings Ref. the 3rd ZO/HYD/HRM/MISC/2023-24/212, dl. 22¬8-2023 respondent herein pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interests of justice. issued by IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.3 herein to filed counter in this Writ petition No. 27757 of 2023 or pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action the 3rd respondents herein in rejecting the representation dt12-12-2015 vide proceedings in Ref.ZO/HYD/HRM/MISC/2023-24/212, dt. 22-8-2023 on the ground that the petitioner is married and ineligible for providing employment under compassionate grounds without considering the circular No.CHO/PMG/13/2023-2, dt.20-7- 2023 and also Circular dt.16-8- 2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance Department, Union of India is illegal, arbitrary violative of principals of natural justice and contrary to the observations made by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.30742/2016 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to provide employment under compassionate ground in pursuance of the Circular No.CHO/PMG/13/2023-24, dt.20-7-2023 forthwith and to pass…”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father was working as an Ex-Head Cashier in the respondent-Bank and, while in service, died on

16.06.2012 due to ill-health. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother submitted a representation dated 28.06.2012 to the respondent-Bank seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said representation was not rejected; however, the petitioner’s mother was informed that the policy relating to compassionate appointment had been revised.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother submitted another representation dated 21.09.2015 to the respondent-Bank, requesting that the petitioner be provided employment on compassionate grounds instead of compensation. However, the said representation was not considered. Once again, the petitioner's mother submitted a representation dated 12.12.2015, reiterating her request for compassionate appointment in lieu of compensation. The said representation was also not considered by the respondent-Bank.

4. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein filed W.P.No.30742 of 2016 before this Court seeking a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2015. The said Writ Petition, after appearance of the respondents, was disposed of, by this Court with the following direction: “…8. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post petitioner’s mother dated 12.12.2015 in accordance with law and circular No.CHO/PMG/23/2014-15 dated 29.09.2014 within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order…” the representation made by in pursuance of

5. After receipt of the said order, the petitioner made another representation along with the copy of the above said order of this Court to the respondents for considering his case for compassionate appointment. The representation rejected proceedings Ref:ZO/HYD/HRM/MISC/2023-24/212, dated 22.08.2023, stating that the petitioner was not entitled for employment under compassionate grounds as he is a married person in view of the circular No.CHO/PMG/24/2007-08 dated

07.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

6. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Vasu Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel representing Sri E.Samba Siva Pratap, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank.

7. The order of rejection passed in the year 2014, stating that the petitioner is the married son and he is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the petitioner’s father was employed prior to the framing of new policy i.e., in the year 2014. The consideration of the case of the petitioner comes under the policy made in the year 2007 vide Circular No.CHO/PMG/24/2007-08, dated 07.11.2007, wherein the word family is stated as follows:

6. “Family” in relation to an employee means - i) Spouse ii) Wholly dependant children (Son including legally adopted son, unmarried daughter including legally adopted unmarried daughter) iii) In case of unmarried employee, parents who are wholly dependent on the employee will constitute family.

9. Even the policy framed on 29.09.2014 circular No.CHO/PMG/23/2014-15, it is stated as follows:

2.DEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBER

2.1 Spouse; or

2.2 Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or

2.3 Wholly Dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or

2.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee.

10. A perusal of both the aforesaid circulars makes it clear that a married son cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be excluded from their purview. Both the circulars expressly contemplate the inclusion of adopted daughters as well as adopted sons. At the highest, the policy of 2007 may be interpreted to exclude a married daughter; however, there is no such exclusion in respect of a married son. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the claim in the Writ Petition cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank submits that as on the date of death of petitioner’s father, the old policy was existing. In support of his contention, he, relied on the Judgment of High Court of Calcutta in Mousumi Sinha vs. Union of India and others1, wherein the relevant para, is extracted hereunder:

10. Thus, from the said circular it reflects that compassionate appointment is applicable only when an employee dies while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or the employee dies within 5 years of his appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children. In the instant case neither of the conditions are being fulfilled. As such the prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be allowed.

12. The above reliance placed by the learned counsel has no application for the present case as the rejection was on the ground that he was the married son. The said ground of rejection cannot be sustained as per the policy. It is not in dispute that in the new policy or in the old policy, there is no provision excluding a married son from the zone of consideration from compassionate appointment.

13. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the respondents-Bank is contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment and the ground of rejection that married son cannot be considered as the dependent, cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be set aside. 1 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 5465

14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings in Ref: ZO/HYD/HRM/MISC/2023-24/212, dated 22.08.2023, and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, also shall stand closed. Dated: 06.08.2026 M K K ________________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 132 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Writ Petition No. 27757 of 2023 Date: 06.08.2026 M K K