IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11502 of 2008(T)
1. REV.P.V.JACOB, PEZHAMATTATHIL ROSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (P & HRD),
For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :19/03/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.11502 of 2008
-------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The daughter of the petitioner Ms.Rachael, while
employed in the State Bank of India, as Assistant, died due to
Internal Collapse at the age of 35 years, with 15 years of service
to her credit, on 19.4.2005. At that time, she was drawing a
salary of Rs.11,288/- per month. A scheme for compassionate
appointment was available in the bank and an application was
made by the brother of the deceased, the son of the petitioner
herein, for compassionate appointment in the bank, on
21.5.2005, within a short time of the death of the incumbent.
This was rejected as per Ext.P2, essentially on the ground that
the incumbent was visited with disciplinary action while in
service, by way of a punishment wherein her scale of pay was
brought down by two stages and since her career was blemished
on account of the disciplinary action, the dependent of a
deceased, whose career was blemished was ineligible. But
later, Ext.P4 was brought about with some radical changes.
W.P.(C).No.11502 of 2008
:: 2 ::
Instead of compassionate appointment, the bank was to grant
Ex-gratia Lumpsum payment. Further, the persons eligible for
Ex-gratia payment, in the case of an unmarried employee,
would be the parents. The petitioner is a retired Priest aged 69
years. Going by the averments in the writ petition, it seems
that the family was living with the wages earned by his
unmarried daughter. Further, under Ext.P4, the disability
which earlier visited the dependents of employees whose career
was blemished was removed and such persons were also found
eligible to apply for Ex-gratia payment. This is discernible from
Clause 15(ii) of Ext.P4 scheme, which reads as follows:
“The dependents of employees, who have
died and whose service records were blemished on
account of disciplinary action having been taken against
them, will be considered under the scheme as this is a
welfare measure and the families should not suffer for
their acts. Similarly, where the employees were facing
should not suffer for their acts. Similarly, where the
employees were facing disciplinary action at the time of
death, the cases will be treated as abated. The
payment of Ex-gratia will be considered in such cases
also. However, employees seeking premature
W.P.(C).No.11502 of 2008
:: 3 ::
retirement due to incapacitation before 55 years of age
and whose service records are blemished on account of
disciplinary action having been taken against them, will
be ineligible for payment of Ex-gratia Lump sum amount
under the Scheme.
2. Ext.P5 application was submitted by the petitioner
for such Ex-gratia payment on 23.1.2006. The petitioner had
earlier approached this court in W.P.(C)No.19480/07, which led
to Ext.P7 judgment, recording the submission of the bank that
Ext.P5 application had already been rejected by the order
marked as Ext.R1(d) in the said writ petition. The said order
Ext.P8 has now been challenged in this writ petition.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the
bank.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Philip
J.Vettickattu and Mr.George Thomas, learned counsel for the
Bank.
5. Mr.George Thomas submits that Clause 14 of the
Scheme would show that only applications preferred under the
W.P.(C).No.11502 of 2008
:: 4 ::
earlier scheme that were pending at the time of enforcement
of the new scheme viz., 4.8.2005 would be eligible to be
considered under the new scheme. Ext.P2 is a communication
by which the application submitted under the earlier scheme
stood rejected on 24.6.2005. It was not pending as on
4.8.2005. The stand taken in Ext.P8 is wrong according to the
learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, Clause 14 of
Ext.P4 speaks about the manner in which the applications
preferred under the earlier scheme are to be dealt with.
Therefore, there is an implied bar on fresh applications being
entertained under the new scheme, if an application under the
old scheme for compassionate appointment had already been
rejected. But, I am inclined to hold that the scheme which
provides for Ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate
appointment should be liberally considered insofar as the
scheme provides for considering applications for such Ex-gratia
payments. In the absence of an express bar against
consideration of an application for Ex-gratia payment, at the
W.P.(C).No.11502 of 2008
:: 5 ::
instance of a dependent, in spite of an application for
compassionate appointment having been rejected under the old
scheme, I am of the view that the bank should consider the
application filed by the petitioner for Ex-gratia payment, on
merits and in accordance with law.
6. There is yet another reason which persuades me to
arrive at this conclusion. As stated above, the earlier scheme
for compassionate appointment provided for a bar against
consideration at the instance of dependents of employees
whose service records were blemished. The said bar has been
removed under the new scheme as is evidenced by Clause 15
thereof. This also indicates a more liberal approach by the
bank, which, I should say, is salutary in character. Ext.P2 was
rested solely on the blemished career of the deceased Rachael.
The said infirmity is no longer relevant. It is only appropriate
that the application filed by the father for the Ex-gratia
payment on account of the premature death of his daughter be
benevolently considered by the bank.
W.P.(C).No.11502 of 2008
:: 6 ::
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part.
Ext.P8 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to take a
fresh decision on Ext.P5 in accordance with Ext.P4 scheme,
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//