IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 32576 of 2001(C)
1. K.VINOD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHAIRMAN & M.D., BANK OF BARODA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW ZACHARIAH
For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :28/06/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.No.32576 OF 2001
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s father, Sri.M.K.Radhakrishnan died on
10.1.1992, while in the employment of the Bank of Baroda. The
Bank promptly communicated to his widow, the terms of the
scheme for compassionate appointment then available. It
appears that the widow of the employee is a teacher in the S.K.V.
College, Thrissur. She, thereafter, requested the Bank to
provide employment to the petitioner, her son. The Bank, in
1994, wrote back saying that the offer of employment for the
minor son would be kept open till he becomes a major. He
attained majority on 27.3.1995 and his mother again wrote to the
Bank. The petitioner was then interviewed and found ineligible
for compassionate appointment.
2. On record is the fact, as disclosed by Ext.P3, that in March,
1995, the petitioner was undergoing B.Com. degree course at
S.K.V. college, Thrissur where his mother was a Selection Grade
OP.32576/01
Page numbers
Lecturer then and had a few more years’ service left to attain
superannuation. With the passage of time and the availability of
alternate employment for the widow, it is apparent that the
family of the deceased did not require any assistance by way of
compassionate appointment, having regard to their financial
status immediately following the demise of the employee. The
respondents are, therefore, justified in taking the view that the
family did not require such assistance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically pointed out
the pleadings in para 7 of the writ petition where it is stated that
certain individuals have been given appointment on
compassionate basis, allegedly, in preference to the petitioner. It
is argued that many of those persons were much better placed
than the petitioner and preference ought to have been given to
the petitioner, or at least the petitioner should have been placed
at par and extended the same benefits.
OP.32576/01
Page numbers
4. However, having regard to the law as laid by the bunch of
decisions governing the field, including State Bank of India v.
Aspal Kaur {2007 (2) KLT SN 12 (Case No.18)} and Union
Bank of India & Others v. M.T.Latheesh (2006 AIR SCW
4626), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. However, even
if I were to make a comparative evaluation at this distance of
time and to hold that those persons were given appointments
otherwise not in accordance with law as noticed above, it is
impermissible to extend the benefit by applying the equality
principle where the equality sought to be attained is with
appointments against legal principles as noticed above. May be
that it would have been proper for the Bank to put the reasons in
a communication that was addressed to the petitioner or his
mother, refusing compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
The writ petition fails, the same is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge
kkb.
OP.32576/01
Page numbers
=======================
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
O.P.NO. 32576 OF 2001
JUDGMENT
28TH JUNE, 2007.
=======================