IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 599 of 2010()
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE,
... Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( A & 1),
Vs
1. ASWATHY C,D/O.LATE K0CHU KRISHNAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY
Dated :17/12/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
....................................................................
Writ Appeal No.599 of 2010
....................................................................
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge
directing the appellant-Bank to consider the respondent for
employment in the Bank on compassionate ground. We have heard
Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, Advocate appearing for the appellant and
Advocate Sri.N.Unnikrishnan appearing for the respondent.
2. Respondent’s father while serving as an Officer in the
appellant-Bank died of kidney failure after undergoing protracted
treatment for several years in different hospitals. When he died on
26.7.2000, respondent was a Degree student and later after taking
Degree, she applied for a job in the Bank on compassionate ground.
The Bank after conducting enquiry and after taking into account the
terminal benefits received by the legal heirs of the deceased namely,
respondent and her mother, came to the conclusion that respondent and
her family are not in penury entitling her for a job under compassionate
W.A. No.599/2010 2
ground under the norms of the Bank. The main grounds on which
compassionate employment is declined to the respondent is the family
pension received by the family and the income of respondent’s
widowed mother as a clerk in a school which fetches her Rs.4,800/-
per month. The total family income towards family pension and salary
of the widow is something like Rs.9,600/-. It is not known whether
the respondent’s mother is still in service or whether she has already
retired at the age of 55. Counsel for the appellants referred to the
details of assets and liabilities of the family of the deceased contained
in Ext.P4 statement furnished by the respondent. Counsel for the
respondent on the other hand referred to the findings in the judgment
wherein the learned Single Judge after considering assets and liabilities
of the deceased came to the conclusion that the net balance available is
only around Rs.2.5 lakhs. The main ground of challenge raised by the
appellants is that there is no proof of the liabilities claimed by the
respondent which are borrowals to the extent of Rs.7.5 lakhs shown in
the statement of assets and liabilities. However, counsel for the
respondent referred to the medical bills and other documents produced
W.A. No.599/2010 3
which show that deceased father of the respondent was suffering from
kidney failure and he was admitted to several hospitals and was
undergoing dialysis rather on a regular basis. Respondent’s specific
case accepted by the learned Single Judge based on documents
produced is that the family had spent around Rs.16 lakhs towards six
years’ protracted treatment of the respondent’s father before his death in
several hospitals for kidney failure.
3. After hearing both sides and after going through the findings
of the learned Single Judge and the records produced in court which
reflect the financial position of the family of the deceased at the time of
death and thereafter, we feel the Bank’s case that the respondent’s
family is not in penury cannot be accepted. Counsel for the respondent
also brought to our notice the terrible tragedy suffered by the family
which is death of the only brother of the respondent who was 4th year
Engineering student in the year 2009. Counsel for the respondent
submitted that after the tragic death of the respondent’s father, the
family sustained education of the respondent’s only brother in the
Engineering College at a heavy cost and in the prime of his life he also
W.A. No.599/2010 4
died in an accident while in the 4th year of study in the College.
Counsel also submitted that respondent’s mother would have by now
retired from her job as a Clerk in a school or she will be atleast on the
verge of retirement leading to reduction in monthly income. The
learned Single Judge also stated that the respondent’s case of massive
expenditure in treatment of her late father leading to debts cannot be
overruled for more than one reason. Firstly, even though appellant-
Bank has a case that they have made reimbursements, the details
furnished before the Single Judge show that the reimbursement is only
upto Rs.30,000/- whereas the claim of expenditure for treatment of the
deceased for six years by the respondent and her mother is as much as
Rs.16 lakhs. We do not think there is any need for us to consider the
meticulous accounts because for the last several years medical
treatment has been very expensive in all private hospitals. Therefore,
court can easily assume and estimate the probable expenditure incurred
for treatment of respondent’s father for six years in expensive private
hospitals for kidney failure. On the whole, the family is quite
devastated and is not financially sound. So far as immovable
W.A. No.599/2010 5
properties are concerned, all what is claimed by the Bank is that
respondent and her mother together have a house to live and there is no
other claim of ownership of landed properties or other buildings. The
finding of the learned Single Judge is that from out of total savings,
respondent’s family will be getting only Rs.2.5 lakhs. In view of our
findings above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings
of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants-Bank to consider
appointment of the respondent in the Bank on compassionate ground.
We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
BHABANI PRASAD RAY
Judge
pms
