Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
State Bank Of Travancore vs Aswathy C on 17 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.118 seconds.