Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.Rajasekhar vs Andhra Bank 2 Ors on 25 February, 2021
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
WRIT PETITION No. 24086 of 2004
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for records relating to and connected with Proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated 9th June, 2003 and set aside the same by holding it absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in any of the suitable post as per the scheme for compassionate appointment in any of the existing vacancy or by creating a supernumerary post in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2) As per the averments made in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the brief facts of the case emerge as under:
2
(i) The father of the petitioner, Sri B. John Prasada Rao, died on 19.12.1998, while working as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner made representation to the respondents for appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondents conducted a detailed enquiry on 22.11.1999. By letter, dated 07.01.2000, the 2nd respondent rejected the request for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The petitioner filed W.P.No.27078 of 2001 before this Court and it was disposed of by its order, dated 11.11.2002 directing the respondent-bank to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(ii) Thereafter, the respondent-bank with a malafide intention directed the petitioner to appear before the interview board for considering his case for clerical post. The respondent-bank rejected his case for clerical post vide proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated 09.06.2003, on the ground that he is not suitable for appointment to the post of a Clerk as he was not able to write or read even a few sentences in English. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the present writ petition is filed.
3
3) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the said counter affidavit it was admitted that the father of the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the service of the respondent-Bank at its Old Guntur Branch at the time of his death i.e., on 19.12.1998 and the deceased was survived by his widow, the petitioner and four daughters. The respondent-bank has settled the terminal benefits of the deceased and a sum of Rs.3,54,396/- was paid to the family of the deceased. The deceased employee had also availed housing loan and constructed a house at Guntur. The said loan was also closed with the Housing Loan Insurance amount received from LIC of India. The mother of the petitioner is being paid family pension over Rs.4,637- 92 ps. per month. As such, the competent authority found that the petitioner's family had sufficient means to live upon reasonably and declined the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27078 of 2001 and the same was disposed by this Court vide its order, dated 11.11.2002.
4) Further as per the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.27078 of 2001, the respondent-bank advised 4 the petitioner to appear for interview along with all documents. The interview committee declined to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as the petitioner unsuitable for appointment to the post of a clerk in the service of bank as he was not able to write or read even a few sentences in English and issued impugned proceedings. As such, there is no substance and merit in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the respondent-bank prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5) Heard Sri Pratap Narayana Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the only male member in the family and his father died leaving behind him, his mother and four unmarried sisters and that the family pension being received by his mother is not at all sufficient to maintain the family. Learned counsel further submits that even the rules do not debar or prohibit a person for compassionate appointment on the ground that 5 he was paid terminal benefits or that the family is receiving family pension.
7) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are not justified in denying the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the premise that the family of the deceased was paid the entire terminal benefits and the mother of the petitioner is being paid family pension.
8) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner never opted for any clerical post and he informed the bank officials that he may be considered for any suitable post as per the scheme of compassionate appointment. But, the respondent-bank deliberately and intentionally with a malafide intention, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he is not suitable for clerical post. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent-bank and requested to consider his case on any Class IV post, but the respondent-bank did not consider his case.
6
9) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank submits that the scheme for compassionate appointments were/are framed as per the guidelines of the Government and it is the Government which decides the scheme and not by the individual banks. It is further submitted that as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.27078 of 2001, dated 11.11.2002, the petitioner was called for an interview as per the scheme and the selection committee which interviewed the petitioner found him not fit for the appointment and accordingly, the petitioner was informed by letter, dated 9th June, 2003 and as such, sought dismissal of the writ petition.
10) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears from the record that consequent to the demise of the bread winner of the family, who died in harness on 19.12.1998 an application was made to the respondents for appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected on 07.01.2000. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition No.27078 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner. The said writ 7 petition was disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
11) Though the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was not mentioned in the rejection order, dated 07.01.2000, the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.27078 of 2001 stated the reasons for rejection, in which it was stated that due to the reason that the family of the petitioner was paid Rs.3,54,396/- towards terminal benefits and the mother of the petitioner is being paid family pension of Rs.4,637-92 ps. per month and the housing loan availed by the deceased employee was closed with the housing loan insurance amount received from Life Insurance Company of India and as such, there is no right under law for appointment under compassionate grounds.
12) This Court after examining the reasons submitted by the respondents for rejection of the claim of the petitioner and upon relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited1 and the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. 1 (2000) 6 SCC 493 8 D. Gopaiah2, in which it was held that compassionate appointment could not be denied on the ground that family benefit scheme was available, in as much as it was not a substitute for compassionate appointment, directed the respondents to reconsider the matter.
13) It appears in compliance of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.27078 of 2001, the respondents called the petitioner for an interview scheduled on 28.04.2003 along with all certificates. The interview was postponed and it was rescheduled on 24.05.2003. The committee appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent- Bank interviewed the petitioner and it was informed to the petitioner vide Letter No.666/3/R/65, dated 09.06.2003 that the committee found the petitioner unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Clerk in the Bank's service as he was not able to write or read even a few sentences in English. It appears this rejection order was passed under the impression that the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Clerk in the service of the Bank. 2 2001(6) ALD 759 (FB) 9
14) But, it is the contention of the petitioner that he never submitted application seeking appointment as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank. He requested only to appoint him in any suitable post on compassionate grounds. The respondents only to deprive the petitioner, they consider the claim of the petitioner against a post of Clerk and rejected the same intentionally.
15) To examine the rival contentions of the parties, it is appropriate to consider the scheme for appointment to the dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds framed vide Circular No.198, dated 01.05.1990 by the respondent-Bank. The relevant paragraphs of the scheme are extracted as hereunder for better appreciation of the case:
3. APPOINTMENT UNDER THE SCHEME:
The Bank may at its discretion, appoint in the Bank, in any of the posts mentioned hereunder, the widow or a son or daughter of a deceased employee of the bank or a near relative nominated by the Widow on whom she will be wholly dependent and who would give in writing that he or she would look after the family of the deceased employee, if the widow or son or daughter or a near relative, as the case may be, fulfill, the criteria for appointment under the scheme. Where the deceased employee was a widower or a bachelor, the bank may exercise its discretion in this 10 regard, by making enquiries of the next elder in the family. The appointment under the scheme shall be made in officer, Clerical and Allied Cadre and Sub-staff cadre which are asunder:
i) Officer cadre (only in very deserving cases), ii) Clerk, Cashier-cum-Clerk, Telephone Operator, iii) Godown Keeper, iv) Stenographer, Machine Operator, v) Typist and such other posts in Clerical cadre, vi) Sub staff Cadre, vii) Part-time sweeper. 5. METHOD OF APPOINTMENT:
i) Request for appointment under the scheme should be received by the Bank within one year from the date of death of employee. In case the dependent is a minor or does not possess suitable minimum qualifications his/her case can be considered within four years of the death of the employee, to enable him/her to so qualify in terms of age and are qualification, provided that the dependent has made a request to the bank within year of the death of employee.
(ii) x x x x
(iii) x x x x
(iv) QUALIFICATIONS:
a) To qualify for appointment in clerical cadre, a dependent including the widow of a deceased employee, the minimum qualification would be a pass-in the SSC/SSLC/ Matriculation only. A dependent of a deceased employee who possess technical qualifications etc., which are 11 prescribed for the posts of Stenographers, Machine Operators or posts requiring technical qualifications etc., his/her case is considered for the particular post as in the case of general candidates.
b) To qualify for appointment in sub-staff cadre, a dependent of a deceased, who can prove to the satisfaction of the appointing authority that he/she possesses the simple knowledge of reading and writing English or the regional language, is eligible and requirement of his/her having passed any examination in school is not to be insisted upon. The above requirement is relaxed even further with respect to widows, provided she can perform the duties of sub-staff cadre.
c) No minimum qualification is prescribed for appointment as part time sweeper in sub-staff cadre.
V) Applicants would not be required to undergo any written test for appointment under the scheme save and except that they will have to undergo a test in type writing/ machine operating/telephone operating and shorthand writing etc., in case of appointment to the posts of typists, machine operators, telephone operators and stenographers etc.
16) On perusal of the above qualifications, it is clear that to qualify for appointment in sub-staff cadre, a dependent of a deceased, who can prove to the satisfaction of the appointing authority that he/she possesses the simple knowledge of reading and writing English or the regional 12 language, is eligible and requirement of his/her having passed any examination in school is not to be insisted upon.
17) The petitioner was aged 19 years and he passed Intermediate and as such, definitely, he may be able to possess the simple knowledge of reading and writing the regional language. In clause (b) of (iv) in which the qualifications required are mentioned stating that he possess the simple knowledge of reading and writing English or the regional language. But, in the present case, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that he is not able to read or write a few sentences in English. As and when in the scheme itself it is provided that if he possess the simple knowledge of reading and writing in the regional language is sufficient, rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he is not able to read and write English, appears to be contrary to the scheme formulated by the respondent-Bank itself. The reason given to reject the case of the petitioner is unjustified. In view of the same, this Court holds that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated 09.06.2003 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the 13 object of the compassionate appointment scheme of the Bank and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents instead of rejecting the petitioner for clerk post ought to have appointed him in Sub-staff cadre.
18) This Court has gone through the citations relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Smt. Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal3 and the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decisions in (1) State Bank of India & Anr. V. Raj Kumar4, (2) MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh5, (3) Canara Bank and another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar6 (4) Indian bank and others vs. Promila and another7 (5) State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Shrivas8.
19) There is no dispute with regard to proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, in which it was held that the appointment on compassionate 3 AIR 2018 Supreme Court 783 4 (2010) 11 SCC 661 5 (2013) 10 SCR 1 6 (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 412 7 (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 729 8 2020 SCC OnLine SC 789 14 grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the same is not vested right and the claim of compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer of such employment to get over the sudden financial crisis.
20) In the present case, the respondent-Bank framed the scheme called "Scheme for appointment in Officer, Clerical and Allied Cadre and Sub-staff cadre to the dependents of the deceased employees of Andhra Bank on compassionate grounds by Circular No.198, dated 01.05.1990". As such, the respondents are bound to follow the scheme to provide compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employees, who died in harness while working in the respondent-Bank. The respondents ought to have keep in mind the settled law that compassionate appointment could not be denied on the ground that family benefit scheme was available, in as much as it was not a substitute for compassionate appointment. The respondents contrary to this settled law rejected the claim of the petitioner at first instance stating that the family of the petitioner was given some terminal benefits and mother of the petitioner is being paid pension.
15
21) It is quite strange of note that one of the grounds to reject the claim of the petitioner at first instance is that the deceased employee had availed a housing loan and the said loan was closed with the housing loan insurance amount received from Life Insurance Corporation of India. This Court unable to understand what is the role of the respondent-Bank in closing the housing loan. It is a right to every employee to avail a housing loan. The father of the petitioner took insurance policy by paying premium. On the sudden demise of the employee, the insurance company made the payment and the housing loan account was closed. In such circumstances, this Court unable to understand what is the great favour done by the respondent-bank to the family of the deceased employee by closing the housing loan. The grounds mentioned in the rejection order itself are not tenable and unsustainable in the eye of law and in view of that fact only, this Court by its order, dated 11.11.2002 in Writ Petition No.27078 of 2001 directed the respondents to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
22) To consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the direction of this 16 Court to reconsider it, the respondent authorities it appears took an unreasonable stand by saying that they called the petitioner for interview as per the procedure provided under the scheme, but the real intention of the respondents appears to be to deprive the petitioner. The object of scheme of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread winner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner on humanitarian consideration keeping in mind that the family would not be able to make both ends meet.
23) Learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that from the date of death of the deceased employee (i.e) 19.12.1998 till date (i.e) after 23 years the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. But the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Subhadra's case (3 supra). In that case the petitioner's husband died on 06.07.2003. The Hon'ble Apex Court directed the respondents therein to appoint one son 17 of the appellant on compassionate grounds after 15 years from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner therein.
24) The objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to help families of deceased employees. Under the scheme, one of the dependent family members of the deceased employee, who die in harness, is eligible for appointment to a job in respondent-Bank.
25) This Court is unable to agree with the stand of the respondents. In the opinion of this Court, if such claims are rejected on such unreasonable and untenable grounds, the very object of scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families would be defeated.
26) For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The proceedings issued in letter No.666/3/R/65, dated 09.06.2003 by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside;18
(ii) The respondents shall consider and appoint the petitioner in Sub-staff cadre in the respondent-Bank, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(iii) No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ BATTU DEVANAND,J Dt. 25-02-2021.
Note: Issue CC in two days.
B/o PGR 19 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION No.24086 of 2004 Dt.25-02-2021 Note: Issue CC in two days.
B/o PGR