MAHESH KUMAR M Vs. CANARA BANK REP
LAWS(KER)-2003-5-9
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on May 30,2003

MAHESH KUMAR M Appellant
VERSUS
CANARA BANK REP BY G M PERSONNEL WING Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner is an applicant for appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme in the 1st respondent Bank. His father, who was a Clerk in the said Bank, died while on duty on October 10, 1998. The deceased employee left behind him, his wife, two children, two sisters and his aged mother. The petitioner is one of the children. One of the sisters of the deceased employee is mentally retarded. All the six members of the family are unemployed. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ex. P1 application for appointment on compassionate ground on November 13, 1998. By Ext. P2 communication dated February 27, 1999, the Senior Manager of the 1st respondent Bank called for certain particulars from the petitioner. By Ext. P3 reply, the details called for were furnished. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext. P4 communication dated June 30, 1999 which reads as follows: "the financial position of your family has been examined in depth by the competent authority and it is found that there are no indigent circumstances warranting providing employment on compassionate grounds to the dependent of the deceased. Hence your application has not been considered favourably. " The aggrieved petitioner filed Ext. P5 representation praying to reconsider Ext. P4 before the General Manager of the 1st respondent Bank. By Ext. P6 communication, he was informed that his application is engaging their attention and he will be informed as soon as a decision is taken by the competent authority. Again, he was called upon to furnish certain, details by Ext. P7 such as assets/income/income derived from the assets etc, of the members of the family. The details called for were furnished by Ext. P8 reply. When there was no further steps from the side of the respondents, this Original Petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The petitioner challenges Ext. P4 and also seeks a direction to appoint him.
(2.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The first contention raised therein is that the petitioner does not have any vested right to be enforced. Since no right is infringed, he is not entitled to get any remedy from this Court. It is submitted that by way of Provident Fund, Gratuity, leave encashment and Death Relief, Rs. 2,53,079. 11 has been paid to the widow of the deceased employee from the Bank. It is also submitted that the family received an amount of Rs. 95,195/from the Life Insurance Corporation and also Rs. 40,300/- towards National Savings Certificate. It is also pointed out that a monthly pension of Rs. 4,670. 24 is being paid to the mother of the petitioner. It is further pointed out that in view of the new policy adopted by the Bank in the light of the decision of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Umeshkumar Nagpal 1994 (4) SCC 138 : 1995-I-LLJ-798 the petitioner cannot be given appointment. They rely on Ext. R2a guidelines issued by the Government of India to the banks based on the above said decision of the Apex Court.
(3.) THE petitioners have filed a reply affidavit controverting the contentions of the respondents. I heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in G. M. , Canara Bank v. Priya Jayarajan 2002-II-LLJ-1026 (Ker-DB) and Vasanthakumari v. Canara Bank 2002-III-LLJ-1002. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India AIR 2000 SC 1596 : 2000 (6) SCC 493 : 2000-IILLJ-1. The respondents relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Umeshkumar Nagpal's (supra) case mentioned above.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.