High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-07Writ petition disposed of with directions to re...

I. Lakshmi Sankar v. State Bank of Travancore

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 34409 of 2005 (U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B.P. Ray
Judgment Date: 2013-01-07
Court Decision / Holding: This writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner is permitted to file a representation within one month highlighting grievances. The respondent Bank shall pass appropriate orders within three months thereafter after making a fresh enquiry into the present status of the petitioner.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to re-examine the petitioner’s eligibility in light of cited authorities and to consider a fresh representation within one month; fresh enquiry to be completed and orders passed within three months thereafter.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

I. Lakshmi Sankar

Respondents

State Bank of Travancore
The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Sakthikulangara Branch, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. K.P. Satheesan
• K.K. Gopinathan Nair
• C.V. Rajalakshmi
• M.R. Jayaprasad
• K.K. Rajeev

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (Article 226) filed in the Kerala High Court by I. Lakshmi Sankar challenges the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment following the death of her mother, a Head Clerk with State Bank of Travancore. The petitioner's mother died on 05.10.1992, leaving a family that included a minor petitioner and an elder brother who was unemployed; the father remarried soon after. The bank advised the petitioner to claim compensation after attaining majority, and after a series of communications, the bank rejected the claim on 04.07.2000 after considering the bank’s compassionate-appointment policy, which weighs factors such as family pension, gratuity, provident fund, LIC proceeds, other income, and family size. The petitioner contended that the family’s financial condition remained precarious and that remarriage of the father did not bar a dependent from seeking compassionate appointment; she also relied on judgments including Sreejith v. Deputy Director (Education) for the proposition that marriage does not automatically disqualify a dependent. The respondents argued that the bank’s scheme is comprehensive and should be applied strictly, citing several Supreme Court and Kerala decisions on compassionate appointments. Following an interim order (30.11.2011), a fresh enquiry found the petitioner’s father gainfully employed and the petitioner well-supported, with the husband employed abroad. The court found no fault in the management but directed re‑examination in light of the cited authorities and permitted the petitioner to file a representation within one month; the bank must decide within three months thereafter after a fresh enquiry. The petition is disposed of as above.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that compassionate appointment could be considered despite remarriage of the father if the family’s financial condition remains poor; it was argued that the bank’s reliance on its policy, without proper consideration of the family’s overall financial status, was erroneous. The marriage of the father should not automatically bar the claim, and a re-appraisal against policy factors and precedents is warranted, especially in light of Sreejith v. Deputy Director (Education) and related authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank relies on its compassionate-appointment scheme, which assesses family pension, gratuity, provident fund, LIC proceeds, income from other sources, and family size to determine eligibility. It argues that the petitioner’s family did not meet the financial-need criteria; it asserts the need for strict adherence to the scheme and cites various Supreme Court judgments on compassionate appointments to support its approach.

Cited Precedents (9)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sreejith v. Deputy Director (Education)	2012(3) KLT 214 (SC)	Mentioned Only	Cited in argument to discuss marriage not automatically disqualifying, but not applied as binding authority in the final disposition.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors.	1994(4) SCC 138	Mentioned Only	Referenced to illustrate broader compassionate-appointment jurisprudence but not expressly adopted.
Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Aswin Kumar Taneja	2004(7) SCC 265	Mentioned Only	Cited in context of bank-employee dependent schemes; not treated as controlling outcome.
State Bank of India & Anr. v. Somvir Singh	2007(4) SCC 778	Mentioned Only	Part of line of authorities discussed; not binding on Kerala High Court’s final order.
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Karur	2007(9) SCC 571	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of general comp. appointment jurisprudence; not expressly followed or distinguished.
General Manager, SBI & Ors. v. Anju Jayan	2008(8) SCC 475	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities; no direct overruling or reliance in the final decision.
Santhoshkumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.	2009(6) SCC 481	Mentioned Only	Referenced in discussion of eligibility criteria but not applied as a binding rule.
Union of India v. Kishore	2011(2) KLT SN 49 (Case No. 65 SC)	Mentioned Only	Cited in the context of policy considerations; not used to decide the case.
State Gujarat & Ors. v. Aravindkumar T Tiwari & Anr.	2012(9) SCC 545	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities; final order does not overrule or distinguish it.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against I. Lakshmi Sankar v. State Bank of Travancore and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY** **MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934** **WP(C).No. 34409 of 2005 (U)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** ## **-----------** **I. LAKSHMI SANKAR, INDU VILAS,DWARAKA MADOM,KOLLAM-9.** **BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.K.K.RAJEEV** **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.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** ## **WP(C).No. 34409 of 2005 (U)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------** **EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.RM III DATED 20.11.92.** **EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PAD/5/298 DATED 25.4.1995 GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PAD/5/1216 DATED 23.4.1999 GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P4. COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6.6.1999** **EXT.P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.5.2000** **EXT.P6. COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PAD/2/2301 DATED 4.7.2000 GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P7. COPY of the REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.5.2001** **EXT.P8. COPY of the REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5.8.20O4.** **EXT.P9. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATI0N FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.12.2011** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **----------------------** **EXT.R1(A). COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.11.1999 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER.** **EXT.R1(B). COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.1.2000 BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER TO THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THIRUVANANTHAURAM.** **EXT.R1(C). COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 9.3.2000 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.R1(D). COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 31.10.1998 ISSUED BY THE BANK REGARDING APPOINTMENT THE COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **B.P. RAY, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34409 of 2005** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7[th] day of January, 2013.** ## **JUDGMENT** Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner's mother Smt. Indiradevi while working as Head Clerk at SBT, Sakthikulangara branch died on 05.10.1992. She was survived by her husband and two children. The husband got re-married immediately after the death of the petitioner's mother. At the time of death of the petitioner's mother, she was a minor and her elder brother was also remaining unemployed. When the petitioner sought for the employment assistance, the bank by communication dated 25.04.1995 informed the petitioner to make the above claim only after attaining the majority. Accordingly, the petitioner made a claim for employment assistance on 18.04.1999. In pursuance to the same, the first respondent by Ext.P3 letter dated 23.04.1999 informed the petitioner's father to submit an application in the enclosed format and the same was given by the petitioner along with all necessary details. Since the authorities did not take any action, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation requesting for compassionate appointment. The 1[st] respondent W.P.(C) No.34409/2005 -:2:- by Ext.P6 order dated 04.07.2000 rejected the petitioner's claim. Hence this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the State Bank of Travancore, which is a subsidiary bank of State Bank of India has adopted a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds for dependents of deceased employees. As per the said scheme, a number of factors including family pension, gratuity, PF, amount from LIC policies, income of the family from other sources, income of the other family members from employment and the size of the family are to be taken into account in order to determine the financial condition of the family. In the present case, on an examination of the same in accordance with the scheme, it was found that the financial condition of the family did not qualify for an appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner's father was employed, his financial condition was not good to support her and therefore, the petitioner needs employment. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon the decision reported in 2012(3) KLT 214(SC) - **Sreejith v. Deputy Director (Education)** W.P.(C) No.34409/2005 -:3:- **Kerala** submitted that the marriage by itself does not disqualify the person concerned from seeking compassionate appointment. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued the matter placing reliance upon the decisions reported in 1994(4) SCC 138 - **Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors.** , 2004(7) SCC 265- **Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Aswin Kumar Taneja** , 2007(4) SCC 778 - **State Bank of India & Anr. v. Somvir Singh** , 2007(9) SCC 571 - **State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Karur** , 2008(8) SCC 475 - **General Manager, SBI & Ors. v. Anju Jayan** , 2009(6) SCC 481 - **Santhoshkumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,** 2011(2) KLT SN 49 (Case No. 65 SC) - **Union of India v. Kishore** 2012(9) SCC 545 - **State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Aravindkumar T Tiwari & Anr.** 6. In pursuance to the interim order dated 30.11.2011, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the respondent Bank by which it was found that the father of the petitioner was gainfully employed in Commercial Taxes Department of the Government of Kerala and has given the petitioner in marriage and there is no continuous penury and the husband of the petitioner is also gainfully employed in the Gulf Countries and the petitioner's W.P.(C) No.34409/2005 -:4:- brother is an MBA graduate and the father of the petitioner was looking after the petitioner as well as her brother well. Therefore, I do not find that the petitioner was in harness at the time of death of the petitioner's mother even though the petitioner's father has re-married. Eventhough I do not find any fault on the part of the Management, considering the rival submissions at the Bar, I am of the considered view that the State Bank of Travancore should re-examine the petitioner's case in the light of the decisions quoted above. Accordingly, I permit the petitioner to make a representation highlighting her grievances. If such a representation is filed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the respondent Bank shall pass appropriate orders within three months thereafter after making a fresh enquiry with regard to the present status of the petitioner This writ petition is disposed of as above. **sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.** rv W.P.(C) No.34409/2005 -:5:-