R.BANUMATHI, J. - (1.) COMMON question of law falling for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the dependant family members of the deceased employee of the appellant -Canara Bank were entitled to seek compassionate appointment on the basis of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' which was passed Vide Circular No.154/1993 w.e.f. 8.05.1993. The claim is resisted by the Canara Bank on the ground that the financial condition of the family members of the deceased employees is good and that the Scheme dated 8.05.1993 has been replaced with scheme dated 14.02.2005 (H. O. Circular No.35/2005) scrapping the provision of compassionate appointment and in lieu thereof introduced the new scheme of ex -gratia payment.
(2.) IN Civil Appeal No.260/2008, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide its Order dated 24.08.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 1313/2003 (B) titled as Canara Bank and Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar directed the bank to reconsider the claim of the claimant - M. Mahesh Kumar within two months from the date of order. Further, due to the pendency of SLP against the decision dated 24.08.2006 in Writ Appeal No.1313/2003(B), the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala also disposed off the Writ Appeal Nos.2333/2006 and 2335/2006 vide common order dated 11.12.2006 and directed the claimants to approach this Court. Assailing the aforesaid three decisions of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the appellant -bank has filed the instant appeals.
(3.) FOR convenience, Civil Appeal No.260/2008 is taken as a lead case. Brief facts which led to the filing of the appeal are as follows: - Respondent applied to the appellant -bank on 30.11.1998 claiming to be considered for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, a clerk in the appellant -bank who while on duty died on 10.10.1998. Respondent had applied for the compassionate appointment on account of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' with effect from 8.05.1993 then in vogue in the appellant -bank. The bank vide its communication dated 30.06.1999 rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the respondent's family financial position does not show any indigent circumstances warranting to provide employment on compassionate ground. The respondent gave his representation to the General Manager of the appellant -bank and several other representations for reconsideration of his claim; but nothing fruitful happened in consideration of respondent's claim for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, respondent filed O.P. No.21630/2002 (Y) before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam seeking to quash the Ext.P4 and direction to the appellant -bank to appoint him as per 'Dying in Harness Scheme' then in force in the appellant -bank. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2003 allowed the Original Petition of the respondent herein and quashed Ext.P4 and directed the appellant -bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for appointment in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. Appellant -bank assailed the decision of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.1313/2003 (B) and the Division Bench upholding the order of the Single Judge dismissed the writ appeal. The appellant -bank has filed this appeal assailing the correctness of the above order. Learned counsel for the appellant -bank contended that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent. It was submitted that 'Dying in Harness Scheme' is a non -statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent to be enforced through a writ of mandamus. It was further submitted that the compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succour to the deceased -employee and cannot be granted on the passage of time and in all these cases, the concerned employee died about two decades ago and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant -bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon number of judgments: Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana And Ors., 1994 4 SCC 138; Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das and Ors., 2008 15 SCC 560; Union of India and Anr. vs. B. Kishore, 2011 4 Scale 308; State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali, 1994 4 SCC 448; State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur, 2007 9 SCC 571 and State Bank of India and Anr. v. Raj Kumar, 2010 11 SCC 661.;