Learned counsel for v. Ravichandran

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be considered and appointed on compassionate grounds in the clerical cadre consequent to the demise of her father Late Boda Sudhakar, (Employee No. 413352, Ex-Sr. Manager, Hyderabad, M.J. Road Currency Chest) in harness on 15.4.2017 with all consequential benefits duly setting aside the impugned rejection order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Ref. No. HRD.HRMD.2395,CAR-118 dated 23.3.2018 on the basis of subsequent change of policy, which has no application to Petitioners claim and by citing untenable irrational reasons as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in ther circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned rejection order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rel'. No. HRD.HRMD.2395, CAR-1 18 dated 23.3,2018 and direct the respondents to r;onsider petitioner's case for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. JYOTSHNA DEVI FOR SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Re:;pondents: SRI A.KRISHNAM RAJU The Court made the following: ORDER .AV HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 43094 OF 2018 ORDER: Petrtioner, who claims to be the daughter of Late Boda Sudhakar, Emplol,ee No. 413352, Ex-Senior Manager, Hyderabad, M.J. Road Currency Chest, died in harness on L5.O4.2017, seeks app()irtrnent on compassionate grounds in clericai cadre. According to her, rejection order passed by the 3ra respondent Chief Manage r (HR), Syndicate Bank, Manipal dated 23.O3.2018 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 dearh ci her fal-her aL 15.04.2017 , petitioner made Application ior compassionatc appointment which li.'as rejected uide .:rder ciated 23.03.2018 i,,n the ground that as per Circuiar No. 062/2O1818C, dated 31.O1.2018, appointrrrent on compassionate grounds may be provided to the dependent farniiy of tlre empioyee, n,ho dies in service, subject to satisfying tire condition that fanily is indigent and deserves immediate assistance fcr relief irom financial cies,"itution and \ r\here the total incomc of the lir;nily from all sources is below 2 Rs.35,000i - per month; since monthly notionel ini,:ru:.i income on terminal berelits and investment proceedrs is Rs.19.42 1 / and month 1, pension from the bank o1' ,tre dc:,--ased is Rs.23,912,'- ,tot,r11ing Rs.43,333/-, which excreds r:eilrng limit ol Rs.3.5,0tt0/ , she is not eliglble for rrppcintrrent on compassion:Lte ground / lump sum ex gratic;.,t',ttout:rL. Learned ccunsel relying on the judgment of the Honbie Suprerne Court in The Secretary to Gott., Department o;f Education (Primaryl v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappal to su-tmit that intcrpretation asj to the applicability of a norjitled Scheme should dcpe td on11' upon a determinate and ii;<cd r:riir riir such as the datc of iicath and not an indeterminr.r te and variable factor. F'.,r't her rcliance is placed on the -judgmcirt oi thr: Hon,ble Suprerne C)ouit ir; Indian Bank a. Prornila2. r.l-hcrt-it-r also it has been he id rhar claim for compassionate aprpointmtnt must be decidcci .,n1:r ori the basis of relevant scheme prei, alent on date cif dcntisc of the emplol,ee and subsequent schemr: cannot bc looked intc. I Crvil Anpeal No 77-<2 ol l02l (2020) 2 SC(' ri ) ,,// On the contrary, le arned Standing Counsel for 3. respondent bank Sri A. Krishnam Raju, relying on the judgments of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in MGB Grannin Brrnk us. Chakrawarti Slnghs, SBf us. Rajkumana , N'C. Santhosh a, State of Karnataka.s ' Sto:te Bank oJ India v' Jaspal KauF, State Bank oJ India a. Sheo Shankar TeuariT, Stote oJ Himachal Pradesh p. Shashi Kumars, contends that there can be no immediate or automatic appointment on compassionate grounds mereiy upon Application, several factors, including eligibility and financial condition, are to be considered up to the date of assessment lt is further contended that the bank has right to modify or abolish the compasstonate appointment scheme at any time, subject to its policies, financiai constraints, and post availability, hence, petitioner has no vestecl right to compassionate appointment, as pending Applications are processed according to the latest applicable Scheme. '(2o14) 13 scc 583 '(2oto) 11 scc 661 '(2020) 7 scc 617 u (2007) 9 scc 571 '1zot9) s scc ooo '(zotq); scc 6s: 4

4. In the light of the pleadings, arg.ume ts and the legal positio r. the point that arises for considci-aticn rs, whether thc case rtl petitioner can be considered for comp. rssionatc appointme n, vis A-vis the Scheme q.hich u.as in vogr.Le at the time urhen her father died or subsequent to thal.

5. 'Io decrde the said issue, it is nece:;san, to refer the Circular dalecl 08.04.2O 15 (old scheme) on n hich i:,ctitioner places rcliance Lo seek appointment. It stat(ls the r:ligibiiity criieria as r-he family is indigent and desor\res inrmediate assistance fc r- relief from financial destitution L,e sides zrcquiring eCucationaL ,iualification and age limit. etceterar, stated lherein. Admittedl]., pcritioner has rcquisire qualific:aticn z,nd age bracket. (Jn rhe other hand. Circular datecl 3I.O1.20Ig based on lr.hic:h rt:sponCent bank rejected the clajrn of p:titioner stipulatcs.:rr addition to thc conditions in old sc.herne, tilat total income oi f,,rrnilrv from ail sources should be beior.l, Rs.35,OO0/_ pcf mon:b: rer.ised scheme shall come i:-rto forL:e with retrospcclive elfccr from 05.0g.2O14 and the cas;es of er.rployees u-ho dieci wh i1e ir-r sen ice on or after the same clate r.r.ouid be dcalt rn,ith in ,rccordance u.ith the revised scheme. l ,t I I ! I I '-a- f The law on this point is very clear from lhe 6. judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa\ case (referred to supra) ln the said judgment' the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the dicta laid down in earlier judgments in Jaspal Kaur's case' Roj Kumar's case' Chakra uarti Singh's case, M' Mahesh Kumar's case' Promila's case, N.C. Scntosh's case (referred to supra)' State of Madhga Pradesh u. Amit Shritso'ss and Sfate of Madhga Prddeshu.AshishA:aL/oLsthiandheldthal,interpretationasto the applicability of a mod'ifred Scheme should depend onht upon a determinate lancl ftxed citeia such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and uaioble 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- Learned Standing Counsel also referred to the 7. judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank oJ Baroda o' Batjit Singhr o and State oJ West Bengal a' Debabrata " (2020) to scc 496 '0 2023 SCC Online sc 745 ) 6 Tiwaril l but the lacts anci circumstances in those cases are not akin to the case or-r hand, hence, thelr need not be lookeC into.

8. ]urther. it is to. be seen that respoirdent l:,ank has dcnied th e claim of petitioner as the monthly . ncome i:xceeded Rs.35,O00/ . on hvpothetical assumptive calc "rlation ihat she w'ould bs llerting notional interest on terminal benefits. Adl:niLtedl], the satd stipulation \rias not there in the old scheme. ln that regard, petilioner rn her affidzii,.it Lrverred thAt her deceased Lrther is sun ived by unmarrie,l < laughter (petitloner), ',;iic. unrr:arried brother ani aged rnother at thar. lime and they have [o meet the cxpenses for their education. medicines, r'rarriage, etcetera from those terminai .oenefits. Hence. it (ian:lot hr: said that they rr.ould be gel,ting fixed intcrest on the teln: irr:rl beneiits for.ever. Apart from thzrt, thouglh bank in their c.ru:lier stated that petitronci: has been enjo),ing income on other sor_ilccs ie. immovable assets. they did not file a ptece of paper ir-r s-rpport thereof. Thereforc. it is uniust to say that petitioner's crrse riocs not fit in the ceiling fire d by t he neu, Scheme. d' u oz: scc o,rl,,re sc 2 i 9 7 g. 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 bc considered as per Circular dated 08.04.2015' The Writ Petition is accordingly, allou'ed No costs' Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

10. i 1 . closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. 11 LR Copies. Z. ffre UnOer Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, HYderabad.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court 4. M;;;qiru; ijir.ctoi ana Chief Executive officer, Svndicate Bank' Pels-o11e] ' ii.-.ri.Ent iOitic"rs Winql, FGad Office Manipal, Karnataka State-576104' 5. fi5il;;Ai is" ifi;;L; ;;t'c h ief Executive oiricer, Svnd icate Bank' " P;;;;be'pirtr"nt 1oii"-"'rt"wlt1o l, niio otri"ti M'anipa l' Ka rnata ka 6. ih;"Ch;i Manager (HR), Syndicate-Bank' .tvta1!09t, " ;;;;;;"i' 7. o;E c-C i; Sni V.nnvtiunNDRAN' Advocate t-o^P-VC-l B. o;; cc 6 SRin.rcClsuNnu RAJU, Advocate [oPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies oiri".,' ru inipal, Ka rnata ka state-576 1 04 Human Resources State-S76104. "i"o n PSK GJP s HIGH COURT' DATED:1 110212025 ORDER WP.No.43094 of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cq"I @ 7K ,,ia€ iEB 2025 ( t) I+{ (i: is 'xh'\l i,. ., \i= 1TC HF-O