# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN**
**MONDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943 WA NO. 859 OF 2021**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2016 IN WP(C) 9323/2008 OF HIGH**
**COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM**
## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C):**
- **THANKA**
- **1 W/O LATE.ARUMUGHAN, AGED 75 YEARS, KALAMBIL HOUSE, PATHIKKAL, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD.**
**BINDU,**
- **2 D/O LATE.ARUMUGHAN, KALAMBIL HOUSE, PATHIKKAL, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD.**
**BY ADVS. R.HARISHANKAR PARVATHY NAIR**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):**
**STATE BANK OF INDIA**
- **1 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.**
- **THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,**
- **2 PALAKKAD – 678 001.**
**BY ADVS. GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.) AMAL GEORGE**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A No.859 of 2021
2
## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & A.BADHARUDEEN, JJ.**
## **=========================================**
## **W.A No.859 of 2021**
[ _arising out of the judgment dated 09.11.2016 in W.P(C) No.9323/2008_ ] **=========================================** Dated this the 02[nd] day of August, 2021
## **JUDGMENT**
## **Alexander Thomas, J.**
The learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment rendered on 09.11.2016 has dismissed W.P(C) No.9323/2008 filed by the appellants in the matter of claim for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 09.11.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the above writ petition (Civil), the appellants have preferred the above intra-court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
2. Heard Sri.R.Harishankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the W.A/petitioners in the W.P(C) and Sri.Amal George, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India appearing for the respondents in the W.A/respondents in the W.P(C).
3. The case is one relation to the claim of the appellants for compassionate appointment. The husband of the 1[st] appellant and the father of the 2[nd] appellant was an employee of the State Bank of India
W.A No.859 of 2021
3
and while in service he had died on 19.07.1996. Thereafter, the 1[st] appellant had submitted application seeking appointment of her first son, Sri.Balakrishnan on compassionate ground in the respondent-State Bank of India under the compassionate appointment scheme and the said application was rejected by the Bank, as the first son was over-aged for appointment in the Bank and the petitioner was then instructed to submit an alternate proposal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the said rejection of the claim of the first son was made by the respondent-Bank as per order dated 16.04.1997 and 06.11.1998. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the 1[st] appellant had then preferred a writ petition as O.P No.23252/1998 before this Court. This Court noted that in Ext.P-5 order dated 06.11.1998, it is seen that the Assistant General Manager of the respondent-State Bank of India was instructed by the appropriate authority that as the petitioner had not submitted any alternate proposal despite granting two years' time and hence, the competent authority was of the view that there was no crisis warranting immediate relief and hence, the matter was being closed. This Court noted that the said order dated 06.11.1998 was issued by the Assistant General Manager and therefore, it is for the petitioner to
W.A No.859 of 2021
4
approach the General Manager, who is the competent authority by submitting an alternate proposal pointing out the case warranting compassionate appointment. According to the 1[st] appellant, an alternate proposal was then submitted seeking compassionate appointment in favour of the second son. From the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it appears that the case of the appellants is to the effect that, at that time, the 1[st] appellant had mooted an alternate proposal seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her second son. However, the respondent-Bank has taken the clear stand that no such alternate proposal was given by the 1[st] appellant and that this would clearly show that the family of the deceased was not in a crisis warranting any relief by way of compassionate appointment. Later, it appears that the 1[st] appellant had submitted representation dated 26.10.2005, seeking appointment of her daughter Smt.Bindhu (2[nd] appellant herein) on compassionate grounds. A reading of Ext.P-3 proceedings would show that the 1[st] appellant in her representation dated 26.10.2005 had stated that her seven children are maintained by the family pension and she has no other means to look after her family. The respondent-General Manager of the bank has found in Ext.P-3 rejection order dated
W.A No.859 of 2021
5
29.01.2008 that the respondent-Bank is not inclined to accept the said submission of the 1[st] appellant, as all her children are married and appear to be having separate family establishments and further that, the 1[st] appellant's younger daughter, Smt.Bindu (2[nd] appellant) had got married to a person employed in a Gulf country. The respondent-Bank authorities has taken the stand that merely because the 2[nd] appellant, who is the married daughter of the 1[st] appellant is staying with the 1[st] appellant, cannot be a ground to offer compassionate appointment in her favour. It is also been stated in Ext.P-3 that at the time of the death of the employee, only three of their seven children were married, but later the remaining children have also got married.
5. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent-Bank authorities has taken the stand in Ext.P-3 that it would not be said that the family of the deceased had been left in penury and without any means of livelihood and that the appellants have not made out any strong factual case of financial crisis warranting relief of compassionate appointment. It has also noted that the total family income is Rs.3,021/-, etc. Taking note of these aspects and also taking note of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in decisions as in _**General Manager (D&PB) & Ors.** v._ _**Kunti**_
W.A No.859 of 2021
6
_**Tiwari & anr.**_ {(2004) 7 SCC 271}, the General Manager of the respondent-State Bank of India has taken the stand that the claim made by the 1[st] appellant for granting compassionate appointment in favour of the 2[nd] appellant (daughter), is not tenable, etc. These grounds of rejection are cogently stated in Ext.P-3 rejection order dated 27.03.2007.
6. The learned Single Judge has taken the considered view that no grounds are made out for warranting judicial interdiction with the rejection order and has accordingly dismissed the W.P(C). It is by now well established by a series of rulings of the Apex Court and various High Courts in the country that the very object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the immediate and sudden crisis created by the death of the sole breadwinner, who is the employee of the organization and also to relieve the decease's family of the financial destitution and to help it to get over the the economic emergency and that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle the family to such source of livelihood. The public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only if it is satisfied that but for provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis
W.A No.859 of 2021
7
and that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, etc. can the prayer be strongly considered.
7. In the instant case, the employee died on 19.07.1996. The application mooted on behalf of the first son was rejected in the year 1998 on the ground that he is over aged and then instructions was given that the 1[st] appellant will be liberty to make an alternate proposal in favour of the second son. It is the consistent case of the respondentBank that no such alternate proposal in favour of the second son was made. It is much later, that the claim has been made in favour of the 2[nd] appellant, who is the married daughter. All the children of the deceased employee are married. It is also an admitted case that the 2[nd] appellant is married to a person employed in a Gulf country. The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly urge that the sons are not taking care of the 1[st] appellant and that only if, the 2[nd] appellant, who is a married daughter gets a job under the compassionate scheme and that she may financially support the 1[st] appellant. We are not persuaded to accept such pleas of the appellants for the simple reason that the 2[nd] appellant is a person who is married to a person employed in a Gulf country. The plea that in case, the 2[nd] appellant is offered compassionate appointment, then she would financially support the
W.A No.859 of 2021
8
1[st] appellant, who is the mother, etc., cannot be the basis for consideration of appointment in a public authority in the compassionate scheme. Such a plea goes against the very objective of the scheme for compassionate appointments. Further, the initial rejection order were issued on 16.04.1997 and 06.11.1998 [refer Exts.P-1 & P-5 in Ext.P-1 writ proceedings]. Ext.P-1 judgment was rendered by this Court on 05.08.2005. The alternate proposal on behalf of the second son has not been given according to the stand of the respondent-Bank. It is thereafter, that the 1[st] appellant has given representation dated 26.10.2005 mooting the claim in favour of the 2[nd] daughter. The said plea made as per the representation dated 26.10.2005 was rejected by the respondent, as per Ext.P-3 dated 27.03.2007. Ext.P-3 was challenged by filing the instant writ petition (civil), W.P(C) No.9323/2008 before this Court on 17.03.2008. It is one year after the issuance of Ext.P-3 rejection order. The above W.P(C) is dismissed by this Court after final hearing on 19.11.2016. It is thereafter, that the present writ appeal has been filed on 31.03.2021. We have taken a lenient stand for condoning the long delay of 1034 days in filing the writ appeal, only on account of the case put forwarded by the appellants that the previous counsel had not
W.A No.859 of 2021
9
intimated the parties about the subsequent developments in the W.P(C) and about the judgment in the W.P(C), etc. For all these reasons, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge cannot be found faulted for having taken the considered view that the writ petition is liable for dismissal. No grounds are made out for interfering the said verdict of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the above Writ Appeal will stand dismissed.
**Sd/-**
**ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE**
**Sd/-**
**A.BADHARUDHEEN, JUDGE**
vgd
