R. Manoj vs The General Manager

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

Briefly stated, the petitioner''s father, being an employee of the respondent Bank, while working as Part-time Sweeper, died in harness on 07.02.2002, when the petitioner was aged about thirteen years. At that time, the petitioner''s mother, being the wife of the deceased employee, applied to the respondent Bank for compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness scheme. Her application is said to have been rejected on the technical ground that proper supporting documents had not been annexed. Later, once again, the petitioner''s mother applied annexing all the necessary documents. It is disputed whether any proper communication has been addressed by the Bank to the petitioner''s mother concerning the rejection of her second application. The fact, however, remains, that the claim of the petitioner''s mother has not been considered for compassionate appointment. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 application on 27.09.2008 for compassionate appointment. When the respondent Bank did not pass any orders in response to Exhibit P6, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 32862/2011, which resulted in Exhibit P7 judgment. This Court, in Exhibit P7 judgment, observed as follows:

"In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

The petitioner or his mother shall submit a representation before the respondent Bank seeking ex-gratia payment on the basis of available scheme and such an application has to be considered and disposed of by the Bank within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the application it shall also be borne in mind that proper reply had not been given to the petitioner or his mother on the basis of Ext. P2 application. If at all any scheme is available to enable the petitioner to get an employment the same may also be considered as per the prescribed procedure."

In the light of the direction given in Exhibit P7 judgment of this Court, the respondent Bank eventually passed an order rejecting the petitioner''s claim through Exhibit P8. It can be seen from the record that the respondent authorities have, apart from rejecting the claim of the petitioner, provided an opportunity to the petitioner and his mother to submit an application, in the format prescribed and annexed to Exhibit P8, to claim monetary benefit in lieu of the compassionate appointment. Neither the petitioner nor his mother seems to have taken advantage of the offer made by the respondent Bank.

After one year from the date of Exhibit P8, the respondent Bank has re-introduced, through Exhibit P9 dated 07.08.2014, a scheme for compassionate appointment applicable from 05.08.2014. At this juncture, the petitioner once again approached this Court laying challenge against Exhibit P8 order of rejection, apart from seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to extend to him the benefit under Exhibit P9 scheme.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at no point of time has the respondent Bank properly intimated either his mother or himself about the grounds that weighed with the authority in rejecting the claim of the petitioner''s mother initially and that of the petitioner himself subsequently. He has further submitted that in Exhibit P7 judgment this Court has specifically taken note of the said fact and has accordingly held that the respondent Bank shall consider the feasibility of providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. According to him, providing monetary benefit is in the alternative and only when it is statutorily not permissible for the respondent Bank to accommodate the request of the petitioner. The learned counsel has laid stress on the aspect that in terms of Exhibit P9, it is eminently possible for the respondent Bank to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner''s father died in 2002, i.e. more than a decade ago and at this juncture, it is not possible for the respondent Bank to provide any compassionate appointment, very belatedly. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that Exhibit P9 scheme re-introduced on 07.08.2014 can only have prospective application; as such, any cause that arises on after 05.08.2014 could be entertained, subject to the other eligibility criteria of the candidates, but not that of the petitioner whose cause arose in 2002 and whose cause stood clearly rejected by the respondent Bank on more than one occasion.

Indeed, this Court, in Exhibit P7 judgment, has observed that the respondent Bank has not properly communicated its order of rejection, if any, to the petitioner''s mother at the earliest point of time when she made a second application. Even concerning the application made by the petitioner in Exhibit P6, there does not seem to have been any express orders passed by the respondent Bank. At any rate, the action of the respondent Bank can only be gauged in the back drop of the statutory rules governing the issue, i.e. compassionate appointment. Precisely for this reason, this Court, in Exhibit P7 judgment, observed in the manner extracted above to the effect that the respondent Bank may consider the option of providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner, if it is feasible, or in the alternative, providing monetary benefits to the bereaved family of the deceased employee. Though heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Exhibit P9, it is very evident from the scheme re-introduced by the respondent Bank that it is effective only from 05.08.2014. In other words, any cause that arises subsequent to that date can alone be considered under the revived scheme, as could be seen from Exhibit P9.

It is trite to observe that any claim to compassionate appointment is not a substantive right of a person, inasmuch as it is meant only to serve a socio-economic need of providing immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased employee on account of the sudden demise of the sole bread winner of the family. Time and again, the courts have reiterated the settled principle of law that delay is a vital factor in considering the claim of compassionate appointment. Indisputably, the petitioner''s father died in 2002, and subsequently, the claim of the petitioner''s mother was rejected; later that of the petitioner too was rejected by the respondent Bank. It cannot be said that the rejection is in violation of the scheme introduced with regard to the compassionate appointment. Similarly, the petitioner, I am afraid, cannot take any advantage of Exhibit P9 as it has only prospective application.

Before parting with the issue, it is to be observed that nothing prevented either the petitioner or his mother to take advantage of the scheme to the extent of having financial benefit to be provided to the bereaved family. It is entirely up to the petitioner to file an application, as has been indicated in Exhibit P7 judgment and as has been acknowledged by Exhibit P8 communication of the respondent Bank, in the proforma prescribed for the said purpose and take all necessary steps in that regard so that the family can have the financial benefit.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.