Karnataka High Court
Niveditha N M vs Canara Bank on 21 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 10064 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NIVEDITHA N M
D/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA N R,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NO 830/40, BENAKA 14TH CROSS,
VIDYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577005
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAKASH SHETTY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CANARA BANK
6648, 112, JC RD, P B HALSURPETE,
NAGARATHPETE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001,
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. SENIOR MANGER
CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH,
HALADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE 577005
3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER
HRM SECTION, CANARA BANK HUBLI,
DHARWARD DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE-580001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
2
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN NON
CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER APPLICATION FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS BANK TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT AND ISSUE AN
APPOINTMENT ORDER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being married daughter of deceased employee of first respondent-Bank is seeking a direction against the respondent-Bank to give appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. Petitioner's father was working as a Clerk in first respondent-Bank. Petitioner's father on account of illness died on 1.5.2015. Petitioner filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 24.7.2015. The present petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of the respondent-Bank in 3 not processing the application submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. Respondent-Bank has filed a memo and has furnished the details of the terminal benefits paid to the dependants. The memo also indicates that widow of the deceased is getting family pension of Rs.25,447/-.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1030/2021 disposed of on 23.2.2022. Referring to the principles laid down by the Division Bench he would contend that the respondent-Bank cannot discriminate on the ground that petitioner is a married daughter. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Punjab 4 and Haryana High Court in the case of State of Punjab and another .vs. Amarjit Kaur [LPA-462- 2021(O&M) disposed of on 25.1.2023].
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank referring to clause 3 of Compassionate Appointment Scheme would point out that employment on compassionate grounds can be considered provided the son or daughter is found to be wholly dependant on the deceased.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent- Bank.
7. The petitioner's contention that merely because she is a married daughter will not in itself constitute a bar to seek employment on compassionate grounds. This contention cannot be acceded. The compassionate appointment scheme of 5 respondent-Bank has not contemplated any bar in the context of marital status of a daughter. The eligibility criteria is that the daughter should be wholly dependant on the deceased employee. While incidentally deciding the dependency, the management and the Court are bound to examine the marital status of daughter. Merely because the status of a daughter is taken into consideration that in itself would not constitute discrimination.
8. It is pertinent to draw upon the judgment of the division bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. Megha.J .vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and another [W.A.No.891/2023(S- RES),DD.27.9.2023], which elucidates the legal interpretation of dependency and the rationale behind precluding married daughters from eligibility for compassionate appointment. Para 4 of the judgment reads as under:
6
"4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR 2022 SC 5176 to the effect that a married daughter residing in the matrimonial home ordinarily cannot be treated as a dependent on her father. Our scriptures injunct "bharta rakshati yavvane..." literally meaning that it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance to his dependent wife. That is how our legislations too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all regardless of religions), Sections 24 & 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in a broad sense of the term), Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (applicable to Christians), Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of religion and marital status), Sections 36 & 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have been structured. No binding rule or ruling that guarantees right of maintenance to the married daughter residing with the husband qua the father, is brought to our notice."
The judgment emphasizes the duty of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife and reaffirms the principle that compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the immediate financial distress of the 7 deceased's family, rather than confer entitlements or privileges based on marital status.
9. The petitioner's argument posits parity between married/unmarried daughters and married sons in the context of compassionate appointment eligibility. However, this assertion overlooks the fundamental distinction between inheritance rights and compassionate appointment criteria. While the principle of equality among daughters and sons may find resonance in matters of inheritance or succession, it does not translate directly to eligibility for compassionate appointment. The principles governing compassionate appointment eligibility pivot on considerations of dependency, financial need, and the humanitarian imperative to alleviate acute distress, rather than notions of birthright or inheritance. Therefore, the petitioner's plea for parity between married/unmarried daughters and married sons in the 8 context of compassionate appointment lacks legal merit and is not supported by the prevailing legal framework.
10. Furthermore, the eligibility for compassionate appointment is contingent upon a demonstration of severe hardship and an inability to maintain oneself or one's family in the absence of the deceased. Importantly, the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment do not draw a distinction between married/unmarried daughters and married sons. Instead, the focus is on identifying individuals who were dependent on the deceased for their day-to- day expenses and who would consequently face significant financial adversity in the absence of the deceased's support. Therefore, the object of compassionate appointment is firmly rooted in addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by families following the demise of a family member, 9 without conferring appointment as a matter of right or inheritance. This principle transcends marital distinctions and is guided by the overarching objective of extending support to individuals who are genuinely in need due to their dependency on the deceased for day-to-day expenses.
11. The essence of compassionate appointment lies in addressing the immediate financial distress experienced by the family in the aftermath of the employee's demise. The term "dependent" within the context of compassionate appointment denotes family members who were reliant on the deceased employee for financial support. While compassionate appointment aims to alleviate the economic burden on such dependents, it does not extend to family members who have since established independent means of support or who no longer face financial hardship.
10
12. The petitioner's father having passed away in 2015 does not automatically entitle the petitioner to compassionate appointment in 2024. The eligibility for such appointment hinges upon the continued financial need of the family and the absence of alternative means of sustenance for the petitioner. While the representation was indeed submitted promptly, the significant delay in taking action or reviewing the request has resulted in its validity and relevance being compromised. The primary objective of compassionate appointment is to address the immediate financial constraints faced by the family following the death of the government servant or employee. However, the prolonged delay in addressing the petitioner's request has allowed for a substantial amount of time to elapse without providing the necessary assistance or relief to the family.
11
13. During this extended period, the financial circumstances and needs of the petitioner's family may have undergone significant changes. The initial urgency and immediacy of the financial constraints experienced by the family may no longer be as pressing or relevant after such a prolonged period. Therefore, if the petitioner's family has been self- sufficient and able to maintain themselves without facing significant financial constraints since the demise of the deceased employee, they may not be considered eligible for compassionate appointment as the primary objective of providing immediate financial relief would not be applicable in the present case.
14. The petitioner does not possess eligibility criteria. She has no legal right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondent-Bank is not under obligation to consider petitioner's representation.
12
15. Additionally, it is worth noting that the dependents of the deceased have already obtained terminal benefits. The counsel for the respondent- bank has submitted the specifics of the terminal benefits and pension received by the deceased's wife. It would be beneficial for this court to extract the aforementioned memo, which reads as under:
"Terminal Benefit Amount Date Staff Provident Fund Rs.11,27,941.46/- 16.06.2015 SPF arrears as per 10th BPS Rs.43,363.71/- 25.07.2015 Gratuity Rs. 9,09,303.74/- 16.06.2015 Arrears of gratuity as per Rs.43,774.03/- 26.08.2015 10th BPS Staff Welfare Fund Deposit Rs.1,80,515/- 15.06.2015 PL Encashment Rs.4,63,436.46/- 25.07.2015 Death relief Amount Rs.1,50,000/- 23.07.2015 Death Relief fund Rs.35,000/- 22.07.2015 Total: Rs.29,53,334.40/-
Further, the amount of family pension being paid to Yogamani: Rs.25,447/-"
These benefits, presumably provided by the deceased's employer, are typically intended to provide a measure of financial security to the family following 13 the employee's demise. This monthly family pension represents a significant source of financial support for the deceased's family. It is intended to provide ongoing financial assistance to the family following the loss of the deceased's income. Given the existence of this substantial monthly pension, coupled with the receipt of terminal benefits, it can be reasonably inferred that the financial needs of the deceased's family, are being adequately met.
16. It is pertinent to acknowledge that while the Apex Court has consistently ruled that the receipt of terminal benefits and pension cannot serve as grounds to deny compassionate appointment, the primary objective of compassionate appointment, which is to address the immediate financial distress faced by the family following the demise of a family member, appears to have been met. The substantial compensation received by the dependents ensures 14 their financial stability and ability to sustain themselves without necessitating additional support through compassionate appointment.
17. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-