Mony Geevarghe­se @ Radhamony and Aby Geevarghese v. Canara Bank

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/16TH PHALGUNA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 19656 of 2009 (B)** ## **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :** **---------------------** **1. MONY GEEVARGHESE @ RADHAMONY, CHANNAPETTA, THENGUVILAYIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. ABY GEEVARGHESE,** - **CHANNAPETTA, THENGUVILAYIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **-----------------------** **1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE.** **2. GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PERSONNEL WING, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE.** **BY ADV. SRI. P.GOPINATH MENON, S.C., CANARA BANK** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **NS** ## **WP(C).No. 19656 of 2009 APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.05.1995 ISSUED BY THE BANK** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXT.P3 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 24.03.2003 ISSUED BY THE BANK.** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.02.2004 ISSUED BY THE BANK.** - **EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.11.2003 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.03.2004 ISSUED BY THE BANK.** - **EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2005 BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.** **EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.10.2006 BY THE 1[ST] PETITIONER. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.01.2008 BY THE 2[ND] PETITIONER. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.05.2009 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR PAYMENT ISSUED BY THE BANK.** ## **RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL** ## **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **NS** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 19656 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] March, 2012.** ## **JUDGMENT** The first petitioner is the widow and the second petitioner is the son of one Shri.Geevarghese who died in harness on 12-4-1995 while working as an Officer in the Regional Office of the Canara Bank at Jalandhar. They have filed this writ petition complaining that they have been denied the benefit of compassionate employment by the respondents. 2. Late Shri.Geevarghese had married one Smt. Saramma Thomas with whom, he was not on good terms. Therefore he was living separately from her for a number of years. Later on, he is alleged to have married the first petitioner in whom the second petitioner a son and a daughter were born. It was in the above circumstances that late Geevarghese died suddenly on12-4-1995 as stated above. 3. As per Ext.P1 communication dated 25-5-1995 the first petitioner was informed by the Assistant General Manager of the Canara Bank that she was eligible for various benefits like employment on compassionate grounds, terminal benefits including WPC 19656/2009 2 Provident Fund, gratuity etc, travelling allowance for shifting belongings to her place of choice, retention of official quarters for five months and death relief fund. Since the petitioner was informed that she would be entitled to employment on compassionate grounds she submitted Ext.P4 application dated 7-61995 claiming such employment. 4. According to the petitioner, after the death of late Geevarghese, there were some family disputes with respect to the legal heirship, which was pending before a Family Court. The disputes were with the earlier wife Smt. Saramma Thomas. Finally the disputes were settled among the parties in a Lok Adalath and as per the order passed in full and final settlement of all the disputes, it was agreed by Smt. Saramma Thomas that she has no objection in declaring the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased Geevarghese. Thereby, Smt. Saramma Thomas relinquished her rights over the retirement benefits of late Geevarghese. Thereafter, as per Ext.P3 dated 24-3-2003, the terminal benefits of her late husband were paid to her. However, according to the petitioners, Ext.P4 application submitted by her was not considered favourably. It is the further contention of the petitioners that though the terminal benefits of the deceased person were sanctioned to the petitioners, the amounts were all WPC 19656/2009 3 adjusted towards the liabilities of the deceased. Thereafter, the first petitioner received Ext.P6 by which she was informed that her request for employment on compassionate grounds, though placed before the competent authority for consideration had not been considered favourably. 5. Pursuant to the rejection of her application for compassionate employment the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 seeking employment for the second petitioner who had by then become 21 years old. He had also passed the Government of Kerala State Board of Vocational Higher Secondary Examinations and was studying for a computer course. Ext.P9 dated 25-10-2006 was followed up with Ext.P10 dated 25-1-2008 a further request to provide an employment to the second petitioner. However, by Ext.P11, the petitioners were informed that their requests had been rejected. Though they were informed that their requests have not been considered favourably the petitioners did not know the reason for the rejection of their requests for compassionate employment. Therefore, they sought information regarding the same under Right to Information Act. However, the same was also rejected by Ext.P12. The petitioners have therefore filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P6, P7 and P11. They have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to the benefit of compassionate WPC 19656/2009 4 employment and have also sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to provide employment to the second petitioner under the compassionate employment scheme. 6. A statement has been filed by the counsel for the respondents. According to the respondents, though the disputes between the first petitioner and Smt. Saramma Thomas had been settled before the Family Court, Kollam, the settlement does not confer the status of a legal heir on the first petitioner. This is for the reason that the marriage between the first petitioner and the deceased employee was not valid in view of the fact that his first marriage was subsisting. No legal dissolution of the earlier marriage had taken place. Therefore, the first petitioner's application was rejected for the reason that she was not a legal heir of the deceased employee. It is the case of the counsel for the respondents that the scheme for compassionate employment that was in force at the relevant time entitled only legal heirs of the deceased employee to claim such compassionate employment. Apart from the above, it is contended that no employee an claim compassionate employment as of right. The legal heir of the deceased employee, the second petitioner herein submitted an application for employment on compassionate grounds only on WPC 19656/2009 5 25-1-2008, after a period of five years. By this time, according to the counsel the scheme for compassionate employment was no longer in existence. Only Ext.P13 scheme for ex gratia payment was in existence. Therefore, the application submitted by the second petitioner also could not be entertained. Apart from the above, it is contended that the application submitted by the second petitioner being vitiated by delay he was not entitled to the grant of employment on compassionate grounds. For the above reasons, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 7. Adv. P.C.Sasidharan who appears for the petitioners has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Canara Bank and others v. Priya Jayarajan {2001(1) KLJ 411}** . In the said case, an application for compassionate appointment made by the widow of a deceased employee had been rejected for the reason that terminal benefits had been granted to her. This Court held that the rejection of the application submitted by the widow was without any justification whatsoever for the reason that the constitutional principle enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution mandated that by giving such employment, empowerment of women who constitute the weaker sections of the society could be achieved. However, it is to be noted that the said WPC 19656/2009 6 decision cannot ipso facto apply to the present case for the reason that the status of the first petitioner as the legal heir of the deceased cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there is no valid marriage between her and the deceased. The counsel has also drawn my attention to the decision reported in **Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. {(2000) 6 SCC 493}** where a family benefit scheme assured monthly payments to the family of a deceased employee. The Apex Court held that the said scheme was not a substitute for compassionate appointment. The said decision also cannot have any application to the present case for the reason that compassionate appointment in the present case has not been declined for any such reason but for the reason that the first petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased. The counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana {(1994) 4 SCC 138}** to contend that all schemes providing for compassionate employment are intended to help the family of the deceased employee tide over the difficult situation created by sudden demise of the bread winner of the family. It is to be granted during the traumatic period that follows immediately on the death of the employee. There is no point in extending such benefits after the family has managed to survive for five or six years WPC 19656/2009 7 after the death of the employee. Therefore, delay in applying for the benefits under such compassionate employment schemes has been held to disentitle the legal heirs of the deceased from claiming such rights. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the authority considering an application for compassionate employment, while keeping in view the fact that such employment was being granted bypassing the normal modes of recruitment shall also consider whether the family of the deceased employee is able to meet the financial crisis resulting from the death of the employee. The fact that a family has been able to prolong for a number of years is certainly proof of the fact that the family does not need such compassionate assistance. 8. In the present case, though the first petitioner had applied earlier for compassionate employment by submitting Ext.P4, the same was rejected for the reason that she could not be considered to be a legal heir of the deceased. I do not find any infirmity in the said decision. 9. The second petitioner has later on submitted applications for compassionate appointment, which are Exts.P8 and P9. However, by then according to the respondents the scheme providing for compassionate employment was no longer in force, having ceased to be operative from the year 2005 onwards. Only WPC 19656/2009 8 the scheme for ex gratia payment, Ext.P13 was in existence at that time. However, he was not considered for such ex gratia payment since he has not made any application under Ext.P13. However, it is pointed out that the petitioners are being paid family pension though reduced, after the second petitioner attained majority. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there is any justification for directing the respondents to consider the requests of the second petitioner, Exts.P8 and P9 under the scheme for compassionate employment which has ceased to be in operation since 2005. 10. Though the petitioners had not submitted any application under the scheme for ex gratia payment, it cannot be disputed that had the petitioner submitted an application under Ext.P13 scheme instead of submitting Exts.P8 and P9 under the scheme for compassionate employment, the second petitioner would have been eligible for such ex gratia payment. Therefore, the second petitioner was ill advised in submitting Exts.P8 and P9 and pursuing his attempts to obtain compassionate employment. In view of the fact that the scheme for compassionate employment had ceased to be operative it is incumbent upon the respondents to have advised the petitioners to submit an application under Ext.P13 so as to enable them to claim the benefits to which the second petitioner was entitled at the relevant time. Having not advised the second WPC 19656/2009 9 petitioner properly in this regard, it is not open to the respondents to contend that the second petitioner would not be entitled to even the benefits that are due to him under Ext.P13. Therefore, it shall be open to the second petitioner to submit a proper application in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P13. If such an application is submitted within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P13 and shall pass necessary orders thereon, in accordance with law. Considering the fact that considerable delay has occurred in the above matter, the respondents shall consider and dispose of such application expeditiously. I do not find any grounds to grant any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed with the above direction. Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/ P.S.to Judge WPC 19656/2009 10