Sangeetha V.S. Nair v. The Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore, Head Office; Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore, LCPC Branch

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 8319 of 2016** **PETITIONER:** **SANGEETHA V.S. NAIR, W/O.LATE G.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, SPTRA 29(1), MANPAZHA SCHOOL ROAD, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV.SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012.** **2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, L.C.P.C. BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **EL** **WP(C).No. 8319 of 2016 (L)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POST MORTEM CERTIFICATE P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.02.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT** - **P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.02.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **P5 A: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD** - **P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 17.04.2015 P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2003 IN OP.NO.28745/2002 P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SSLC CERTIFICATE PROVING AGE P9: TRUE COPY OF THE MA DEGREE CERTIFICATE** - **P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT DATED 29.02.2016 SUBMITTED UNDER EXHIBIT P6 CIRCULAR** - **P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PAD/GKS/383 DATED 25.2.2016 OF R1** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** - **R1(A): TRUE COPY OF NEW SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT HAD BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE BANK AS PER STAFF CIRCULAR NO.7/2006 DATED 8.2.2006** - **R1(B): TRUE COPY OF SCHEME FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS IN EXCEPTIONAL CASE WAS INTRODUCED BY THE BANK AS PER CIRCULAT NO.27/2011 DATED 4.8.2011** - **R1(C): TRUE COPY OF SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT HAD BEEN INTRUDCED IN THE BANK AS PER STAFF CIRCULAR DATED 17.4.2015** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **EL 7.3.2018** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** ## **-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016** **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner is challenging the denial of compassionate appointment to her by Ext.P11 order, on the ground that she is not eligible for the same under the 'Scheme of compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks'. She is therefore challenging Clause 2(a) of Ext.P6 Scheme to the extent it denies compassionate appointment to the dependents irrespective of the cause of death. Under the new scheme, compassionate appointment is permissible only under two circumstances given in Sub-clause (a) and (b) of Clause 2 of Ext.P6, which reads as follows: "a) Where an employee died while performing official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity. b) where an employee died within five years of first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever was latter, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children " 2. Petitioner's husband died on 25.07.2015, W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 2 while on duty as Single Window Operator (B) in State Bank of Travancore. It is stated that while he was performing official duty, he was taken to hospital from the Bank and died on account of "occlusive coronary artery disease". Petitioner's husband had 11 years 9 months and 22 days of service. Petitioner has passed M.A. (Degree) in Hindi Language and Literature and she is 41 years of age. Immediately after his death, she submitted an application for compassionate appointment. She submitted Ext.P4 application dated 10.02.2016, followed by another representation Ext.P5. This was followed by another representation Ext.P10 on 29.02.2016. Ext.P10 application was rejected as per Ext.P11. The writ petition is filed at that stage. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the claim for compassionate appointment was introduced in the respondent Bank in the year W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 3 1998, but that Scheme was abolished and as per Ext.R1(A), a new Scheme was brought into force in the year 2006. While introducing new ex-gratia Scheme, the Scheme for compassionate appointment was withdrawn. Later, as per Ext.R1(B) Circular dated 04.08.2011, certain modifications were introduced providing for compassionate appointment in exceptional circumstances. As per Ext.R1(C), the compassionate appointment on exceptional circumstances continues as approved by the State Bank of India with effect from 05.08.2014. Thus the dependents of only those who die as a result of violence, robbery, dacoity or terrorism while on duty and of those who die within 5 years of appointment or before 30 years only are eligible for compassionate appointment. 4. It is therefore stated that death of petitioner's husband was not in any of the W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 4 circumstances coming under the aforesaid provisions and therefore petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. As petitioner has challenged Clause 2(a), it is pointed out that the petitioner cannot have any right to claim compassionate appointment as it is only a concession. It is also pointed out that petitioner is in receipt of family pension of about Rs.10,000/- per month. A sum of Rs.1,97,655/- was paid towards gratuity and a sum of Rs.97,566/- towards provident fund. 5. In the above circumstances, it is pointed out that the petitioner is free to submit application for ex-gratia pension as provided in Ext.P6 Scheme and she is not eligible for compassionate appointment. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the death of the petitioner's husband was while he was on duty; whether it is by way of W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 5 robbery or dacoity or whether it is within 5 years of appointment or otherwise does not make any difference for a family, which is in penury, on loss of its breadwinner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in **State of Kerala and Others v. Sindhu C.P.** [2018 (1) KHC 339]. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the petitioner cannot have any right to compassionate appointment. Whatever right is available for the dependents of the deceased employees is provided in this case. Petitioner would be eligible only for those benefits which are available in the Scheme. Appointments in the Bank are made in accordance with the Rules after conducting selection. Therefore, the dependants of the employees cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds unless the Scheme permits in accordance with conditions W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 6 provided therein. 8. I have considered the contentions on either side. It is settled law that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a right of the dependents of the employees, it is only a concession. Whenever there is a Scheme, which prescribes for the benefits available on the death of an employee while in service, the incumbent would be eligible for those benefits as provided therein. They cannot claim that they should be given appointment under the employer where the deceased was working. 9. In **Sindhu** 's case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the widow was denied employment on the ground that the death of deceased soldier was not in war-field. Her husband died due to electric shock while checking electric lines in a peace area. The respondents denied the benefit on the ground that he was not working in the W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 7 high attitude or adverse climate conditions or due to explosion of mines, body traps, accidents etc. and hence the Scheme applicable to dependents of Military persons for employment assistance cannot be extended. This Court found that irrespective of the nature of the area in which the Military person was working, the life of the solider which is dedicated to the Nation is always under threat irrespective of the fact that he is serving in a peace area or a war field; they are performing laborious tasks for the nation in crucial and sensitive areas. There the deceased was attached to bomb disposal company; the widow as well as the family of the deceased Military personnel, suffered on account of the death and that person was the sole breadwinner. The Division Bench found that the denial of the benefit of compassionate appointment to deserving members of the family of military personnels who sacrificed their life for the W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 8 Nation on the ground that the death occurred in peace area is discriminatory. Though it was observed that death is a death in so far as the dependents are concerned and the manner in which the death occurred, will not make any difference in the loss of the earning member of the family. Though it is true that the loss caused to the petitioner and her family on account of death would be the same as to the dependents of the exceptional group, the directions issued considering the case of military personnel who strived for the nation, will not apply to the present case. 10. It is settled law that provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions relating to appointments as an exception. It is also settled law that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that appointment on compassionate ground is W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 9 not another source of recruitment. Such appointments can only be made in accordance with the scheme ( _See_ **Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana** [(1994) 4 SCC 138], **SAIL v. Madhusudan Das** [(2008) 15 SCC 560]. It is relevant to note the following observations of the Apex Court in **SBI v. Raj Kumar** [(2010) 11 SCC 661 664] **"8.** It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn." ## 11. Clause 2 (a) provides for compassionate W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 10 appointment in certain specified circumstances, it is when the death is caused by decoity or robbery and also when the person has not completed 5 years of service for 30 years. Such classification cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. When there was no Scheme as such for the period from 2006 onwards, the Bank has introduced a Scheme for compassionate appointment in those exceptional circumstances. Petitioner cannot claim appointment in the absence of such exceptions. It is the policy decision of the Bank to re-introduce the scheme for compassionate appointment limiting it to the enumerated contingencies. That cannot be said to be unreasonable or discriminatory warranting interference of this Court. In the above circumstances, I do not find any violation of any of the constitutional provisions or any illegality in Ext.11 order rejecting the request W.P.(C).No.8319 of 2016 11 of petitioner. Petitioner will be free to submit her application for ex-gratia payment as stated in Ext.P11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS