Kerala High Court
Lakshmi Sanker vs State Bank Of Travancore on 7 January, 2013
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/17TH POUSHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 30846 of 2013 (E)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:-
------------------------
LAKSHMI SANKER,
INDHU VILAS, DWARAKA MADOM,
KOLLAM - 9.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.KISHORE
SRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENTS:-
--------------------------------
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
P.B.NO.34, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SAKTHIKULANGARA BRANCH,
KOLLAM - 691 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN,SC, SBT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 30846 of 2013 (E)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).34409/2005 DATED
07.01.2013.
EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.02.2013
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITHOUT ENCLOSURES
EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.01.2012 ALONG WITH THE
ENCLOSURE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE
APPOINTMENT AS PER CIRCULAR NO.120/1983 DATED 19.09.1983.
EXHIBIT P6. THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01.01.2000 ISSUED TO THE
RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P7. SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF THE RESPONDENT
BANK UPDATED UPTO 01.01.1998.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
C.T.RAVIKUMAR.J.
=================
W.P.C.NO.30846 OF 2013
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of January 2014
JUDGMENT
------------------
The petitioner's mother died in harness while working as head clerk in State Bank of Travancore on 05.10.1992 and she was survived by her husband and two children including the petitioner herein. Soon after the death of her mother the petitioner submitted an application on 10.06.1993 for compassionate appointment and at that point of time the petitioner was a minor. According to the petitioner, she was then informed that her case would be considered when she attains majority. Later, the petitioner submitted an application on 04.07.2010 on attaining majority and on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of its consideration she moved this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.34409 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 07.01.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to submit a representation within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Subsequently, the respondents considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected it as per Ext.P3. This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to quash Ext.P3 and to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. W.P.C.NO.30846 OF 2013 2
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is now a married woman. True that, going by the settled position being a married daughter would not disentitle a dependent of an employee who died-in-harness, to claim compassionate appointment. Equally, true is the position that the very scheme for compassionate appointment is evolved with the noble purpose to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden finanical crisis occasioned on account of the death of the bread winner of the family and certainly, providing employment to such a family is being done to achieve the said purpose and the mere death of an employee in harness would not entitle his family to compassionate appointment. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner's mother died on 05.10.1992 and at that time the petitioner was hardly ten years of age. The deceased employee was survived by her husband and her two children including the petitioner herein. The petitioner's father was then employed in the Commercial Taxes Department of the Government of Kerala. True that, later he got re-married. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner was given in marriage on her attaining majority and her husband is working in a gulf country. It was thereafter that the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on 04.07.2000. The facts explained above would reveal that the W.P.C.NO.30846 OF 2013 3 petitioner's parents were employed and true that on 05.10.1992 when her mother died in harness she was hardly ten years of age. Even thereafter, the petitioner continued to be under the care and protection of her father and though the father got remarried and he has given the petitioner in marriage in discharge of his parental obligation. It is in the said circumstances that the entitlement of the petitioner for an appointment under compassionate ground has to be considered. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that appointment under compassionate ground is not recognised as a method of appointment and as noticed hereinbefore it was evolved with a view to enable the concerned family to tide over the immediate crisis. When at the time of death of the petitioner's mother the father of the petitioner was very much in employment and he was working in the Commercial Taxes Department of the Government of Kerala. The petitioner was looked after by her father and subsequently he gave her in marriage and her husband is employed in gulf country. Before looking in to the decisions on the subject it is only apposite to look in to the case of the petitioner for claiming compassionate appointment. Evidently, the petitioner did not dispute the employment of her husband in a gulf country. However, her contention as revealed from ground No.9 is that she is living with her in- laws and she is having two children aged five and six respectively and she is finding it very difficult to meet the financial needs of the children W.P.C.NO.30846 OF 2013 4 and their education. According to her unless and until she gets the compassionate employment it would be very hard to meet the financial needs of the family. The question is whether the aforesaid reasons are sufficient to offer compassionate appointment especially after the lapse of more than 21 years by now, since the death of the employee in harness.
3. I may now, examine the entitlement of the petitioner for compassionate appointments in the light of the decisions on the subject. The decisions in Santhoshkumar Dubey V State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2009 (6) SCC 481 and Union of India Vs Kishore reported in 2011 (2) KLT SN 49 were, in fact, taken into consideration by the respondents for rejecting the claim as per Ext.P3 order. Those decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the very concept of compassionate appointment and in explicit terms it was made clear that concept of compassionate appointment is evolved with a view to enable the family to tide over the financial difficulties. In the contextual situation the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India V Sushamma Chandy reported in 2013(4) KLT SN 137 is also to be looked into. After relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V State of Haryana & Others reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, and Union of India V Shashank Goswami reported in 2012 (11) SCC 307 it was held by the Division W.P.C.NO.30846 OF 2013 5 Bench that compassionate appointment could not be granted after the lapse of a number of years. It was further held that giving such an appointment would be against the public policy as otherwise the said post would be offered to the candidate from the open market. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that the provisions for compassionate appointment is made as an exception to the constitutional provisions contained in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India solely with an object of providing immediate succour to the family to overcome a sudden family crisis and not for the purpose of providing employment to a member of such family. A consideration of the claim of the petitioner in view of the aforementioned situation and circumstances will only answer the question of entitlement of the petitioner in the negative. In the circumstances the claim of the petitioner is absolutely impermissible and accordingly I have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P3 call for no interference. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE R.AV