K VENKATESWARAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 19.11.2011 in respect of the claim of writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The father of the writ petitioner was employed as a Part-time employee in the third respondent bank and passed away on 31.05.2003, while he was in service. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the mother of the writ petitioner originally submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 06.08.2003. However, the mother of the writ petitioner was unable to pursue the application and during the relevant point of time, the writ petitioner was a minor and therefore the appointment could not be provided as sought for by the writ petitioner. The petitioner states that his father was the sole breadwinner of his family. On account of the sudden demise of the father, penurious circumstances arose and the petitioner's family was unable to meet out the family expenditure. However, on attaining the age of majority, the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 17.07.2007 and the said application has not been processed by the respondents and kept pending for more than a decade. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner is constrained to move this present writ petition, seeking the relief of compassionate appointment.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the writ petitioner has submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment only in the year 2007, even before submitting the application seeking compassionate appointment, the writ petitioner has submitted an application seeking exgratia payment in lieu of the compassionate appointment. The said claim of the writ petitioner was negatived by the respondents on 21.02.2008 and order was passed in this regard by the Assistant General Mananger of the Canara Bank. However, the said order of rejection is conveniently not enclosed by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents states that, the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Canara Bank and another Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar, 2015 7 SCC 412is not applicable in respect of the case of the writ petitioner. The facts and circumstances of the said case is entirely different from the present case on hand. The judgment of the Honourable Apex Court of India in the case of Mahesh kumar is distinguishable on the facts of the case on hands, which are as follows: