ROHITH KRISHNAN H v. CANARA BANK

The petitioner’s mother, Smt.Sujitha K.T., died on

27.01.2018 while she was working in the office in Kollam Main Branch of the respondent Bank. At the time of her demise, she left behind the petitioner, who was the final-year student of BE, his younger brother, who just completed plus two course, and his father.

3. On the death of the mother, Ext.P1 application is filed claiming an appointment under Dying in Harness Scheme. Since a few clarifications were needed, Ext.P2 was issued by the Senior Manager, Circle Office, Trivandrum to the Manager, Canara Bank, Quilon Convent Road main, to which Ext.P3 reply was given. A letter of recommendation was also given as Ext.P5 WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -3- by the Chief Manager of the Kollam Main Branch to the Divisional Manager. Taking into consideration Exts.P1 to P3, the application was rejected as follows: “The subject application submitted by you seeking compassionate appointment in the Bank was placed before the Competent Authority. It has been observed that there are no mitigating factors to consider the request for compassionate appointment. As such, we regret to inform that your application was not considered favourably”.

4. On receipt of Ext.P4 rejection order on 06.10.2020, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation on 20.11.2020 before the General Manager of the Bank. But no orders have been passed till date. Therefore, he approached this Court for quashing Ext.P4 and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 application afresh under the scheme of compassionate appointment within a time frame.

5. It is also contended in the writ petition that all the service benefits received from the respondent-Bank have been WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -4- appropriated towards the liability of the petitioner’s mother, and moreover, they had to pay a further sum of Rs.3 lakhs and what remains with them is only the land as well as the building, which entitles the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment.

6. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is contended that the petitioner submitted the application on 30.05.2019 claiming compassionate appointment, and on receipt of the application, Ext.P2 letter was issued seeking certain clarifications. A new application signed by the guardian of the petitioner was forwarded to the Senior Manager, thereafter, Ext.P4 impugned order was passed. Ext.P5 communication is issued by the Chief Manager of the Kollam Branch, and he does not have the authority to make recommendation for appointment under the compassionate scheme. The scheme of ‘compassionate appointment’ is in the nature of concession and not a vested right. Clause 6 of Ext.P8 WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -5- lays down the eligibility criteria for filing an application under compassionate appointment. The first and foremost is that the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution, and the second one is an application for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant recruitment Rules.

6.1. A bare reading of Ext.P1 application would show that the petitioner had total assets of Rs. 27 lakhs, and the petitioner’s father was getting family pension of Rs.17,449/- and currently he is getting a family pension of Rs.41736/- from October 2023 onwards. The father of the petitioner is also running a taxi cab service on contract basis; he is also earning income from it, but he has not declared it in the application.

6.2. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is given immediately to tide over the financial crisis because of the death of the family member who was an employee of the WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -6- Bank. The rejection in Ext.P4 is on 06.10.2020 and the petitioner approached this Court only in the year 2023. Therefore, it shows that there is no immediate financial crisis for the family, which disentitles the petitioner to claim the appointment under the compassionate scheme.

7. Ext.P8 is the scheme for compassionate appointment issued by the Human Resources Wing of the Bank. Clause 19 is a procedure prescribed if an application is received under the Dying in Harness Scheme to be followed. It specifically states that an appointment under compassionate ground shall be considered by the Committee of officers consisting of three officials: one Chairman, and two members in the rank of Deputy General Manager/Assistant General Managers and one Executive each from Recovery Wing and GA Wing. The committee shall examine the request received under the scheme, and the applicant may also be granted personal hearing by the Committee, if felt necessary, for better appreciation of the facts WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -7- of the case. The recommendation of the Committee shall be placed before the Competent Authority for a decision. If the Competent Authority disagrees with the committee’s recommendation, the case may be referred to a higher authority for a decision and if the Board of Directors is the Competent Authority, the decision of the Board of Directors is final.

8. It is made clear in sub-clause (7) of Clause 19 that the application for compassionate appointment shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received benefits under the various welfare schemes. A balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made, taking into account its assets and liabilities, and the presence of an earning member, the size of the family etc. Even though a procedure is prescribed in detail in Ext.P8, the rejection order in Ext.P4 is a cryptic one, which shows that the competent authority has not applied its mind and the procedure has not been followed. The only reason stated is WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -8- that it has been observed by the authority that there are no mitigating factors to consider the request for a compassionate appointment. A three-tier system is provided to consider the application for compassionate appointment, and a personal hearing if required, is also stated in the procedure. Ext.P4 does not show that the procedure prescribed has been strictly followed.

9. The Standing Counsel for respondents submits that Ext.P8 was the scheme at the time of submitting Ext.P1 application. But it has been subsequently modified and Ext.P9 scheme is brought into effect with effect from 06.05.2023. He further submits that if this Court directs reconsideration of Ext.P1, the same shall be considered with Ext.P8 scheme which was relevant at that time.

10. Therefore, the scheme that governs the application of the petitioner is Ext.P8 scheme. Since Ext.P4 is very cryptic one and it does not show that clause 19 under the scheme has been WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -9- strictly followed, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P4 cannot stand in the eye of law. Therefore, Ext.P4 is quashed. The net result is that the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per Ext.P1 shall be considered strictly in accordance with Clause 19 of Ext.P8 scheme, and if required, the petitioner shall also offer an opportunity of hearing, substantiate the financial conditions, and also the requirement of compassionate appointment. The exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of a judgment. This Court has not gone into the merits of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and it is left open to be decided by the Competent Authority. The writ petition is disposed of. JS Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE WP(C) NO. 21195 OF 2023 -10- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21195/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/5/19 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 3RD RESPONDENT 5. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8/6/20 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 17/6/20 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE CLARIFICATIONS TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6/10/20 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/9/20 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/11/20 ISSUED BY PETITIONER'S FATHER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22/10/21 ISSUED BY THE ANNA UNIVERSITY CHENNAI TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO 143/2015 DATED 20/3/15 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO IC/415/2023 DATED 6/5/23 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK