AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—1. The case of a hapless widow and an orphan, who was adopted by the couple when the husband was alive, is projected in the above writ petition. The petitioner is the widow of one C.A. Saseendran, who was an employee of the 2nd respondent. The husband of the petitioner died on 24.07.2011 due to cardiac arrest. The petitioner, along with her husband, prior to his death had adopted a female child, who is now aged 14 years and studying in the Chinmaya Vidyalaya at Tripunithura. Neither the parents of the petitioner or that of the deceased employee are alive and the petitioner has been left to fend for herself and her young female child and she has to survive on the meager family pension granted to her, as per the Regulations, which, as of now, is reduced considerably for reason of installments made to the housing loan and would stand substantially reduced after a period of seven years; again as per the Regulations.
The petitioner, immediately after the death of her husband, was before the respondent Bank seeking consideration of an appointment on compassionate grounds. The Regional Office, Kochi, under which the petitioner''s husband was working at the time of his death, had recommended the same as per Ext.P2. The petitioner''s application having been rejected, the petitioner was before this Court with W.P.(C) No. 22761/2012. This Court, in Ext.P3 judgment, found that the petitioner was drawing a monthly family pension of Rs. 10,900/- out of which a sum of Rs. 6,700/- would be reduced as monthly installments towards housing loan liability. What remains is only a meager sum of Rs. 4,200/- for the survival of the petitioner and her daughter, as also for the education of her daughter. It was also noticed that Appendix-III to the pension regulations provided for reduction of payment of family pension after seven years. Taking all the above circumstances into consideration, this Court directed the Bank to consider the application favourably after taking into account the peculiar circumstances, in which the petitioner and her daughter are placed.
The petitioner had been consistently before the Bank with Exts.P4 and P5 and on no response being received, again approached this Court. This Court by Ext.P6 repeated the earlier direction in Ext.P3. While so, immediately after the death of the employee, the Indian Banks Association had written to the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks by Ext.P7 requesting for revival of the scheme of compassionate appointment on compassionate grounds in Public Sector Banks. The petitioner''s application, however, stood rejected on 25.10.2014 as per Ext.P8.
Ext.P8 considered the various orders regulating the matter of compassionate appointment/ex-gratia payment as was existing in the Bank over the years. It is indicated that as per the Government/IBA guidelines the policy formulated by the Bank is to grant compassionate appointment only in exceptional circumstances. Various circulars were also referred to. The Central Office Circular No. CO/HRD/2006-07/57 dated 16.6.2006 was specifically referred to and the same is produced as Ext.R2(a) in the counter affidavit. The same was in supercession of the earlier orders regulating the scheme for appointment, on compassionate grounds, to the dependents of deceased employees. The new scheme provided for an ex-gratia payment to the family members of the deceased employees. Subsequently, a further circular was issued, which is produced at Ext.R2 (b) bearing No. CO:HRD: 2008-2009:149 dated 9.4.2008, which is also referred to in Ext.P8. The scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds was modified insofar as providing for appointment itself, only in exceptional cases. The exceptional cases were also detailed in Ext.R2(b) as being death while performing official duties as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and when the death occurs within five years of the first appointment or before an employee reaches the age of 30 years.
The aforesaid schemes were applicable at the time of the death of the petitioner''s husband and in such circumstance the petitioner was entitled only for an ex-gratia payment, which was not accepted by her was the finding in Ext P8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the Bank was ready to pay the ex-gratia amount, but, however, the petitioner declined the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that such a refusal was made only because the ex-gratia payment would not have served the purpose due to the liabilities of the petitioner''s husband.
In this context the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner assumes significance. It is an admitted fact that the ex-gratia amount comes to Rs. 7 lakhs. The petitioner also admits to receiving Rs. 10,900/- as pension per month, at present. The reply affidavit indicates that at the time of the petitioner''s husband''s death, he was entitled to receive terminal benefits coming to Rs. 14,72,914.20. The entire terminal benefits were adjusted to the dues of the petitioner''s husband to the Bank; on account of loans and otherwise. Even after such satisfaction of dues, there remained a further liability of Rs. 5,38,895.77, which presumably is the housing loan liability remaining to be satisfied. To this amount, the family pension is deducted considerably and the installments are paid on a monthly basis, leaving the petitioner with a meager sum of Rs. 4,200/-.
Ext.P8, however, finds that the petitioner is not paying the installments to the housing loan. Obviously, that is due to the impecunious circumstances, the petitioner finds herself in. The hard fact is that the petitioner has to survive with her daughter and carry on the latter''s education on the total pension amount of about Rs. 14,000/-; even going by Ext.P8. It is also evident that the petitioner''s family pension would be reduced considerably after a period of seven years, i.e., within two years from now, when the petitioner''s daughter would be old enough for higher studies. Ext. P8 itself indicates that the pension would be halved by the year 2018.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court has consistently held that the appointment on compassionate grounds, works against the principles enshrined in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and none can have a vested right to claim it. It is trite that the Courts should be careful in issuing directions to make compassionate appointments, against the provisions of the scheme framed for making such appointments. It is also an admitted fact that, as of now, by circular bearing No. CO:HRD:R&P:COMP: 14-15:017 dated 8.4.2015, there is a new scheme introduced for compassionate appointments. The newly introduced scheme vests a discretion on the Bank to either grant compassionate appointment or make payment of lump sum ex-gratia amount. However, the compassionate appointment, as per the circular, would only be applicable to cases in which death occurred on and after 5.8.2014.
Considering the entire circumstances which come to fore in the above case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner''s case is one in which the Bank has to consider the case of compassionate appointment under the new scheme, despite the same having been limited prospectively to instances of death occurred on and after 5.8.2014. The petitioner and the minor child of the deceased employee are left with none else, even in the extended family, to look after them. The facts placed before this Court as to the financial liabilities of the deceased employee and the minimal income received by the petitioner, has not been controverted by the respondent Bank. The Regional Office of the Bank under which the petitioner''s husband was working, who are aware of the conditions of the bereaved family, had recommended the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner and the minor female child has been left to fend for themselves with only a very minimal income, which would definitely be reduced to half after the period prescribed of seven years. The family pension granted to the petitioner does not at all compensate the loss of her husband nor does it offer succour to the family by provision of even a bare living condition. The prospect of higher education of the minor child also looks bleak. Further, the ex-gratia payment, if made now, the entire amounts would have to be deposited to the housing loan, since Ext.P8 indicates that the outstanding in the loan account is more than Rs. 7,00,000/-. Further, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the child, who has been left to the care of the petitioner, was born with a disability and the deceased had adopted her and destiny has again played a cruel trick in taking away her adopted father, who was the only bread winner in the family.
In the said compelling circumstance, considering the entire facts, it is only proper that the Bank give the petitioner a suitable employment. Ext.P8 has failed to consider the issue in its proper perspective. There is a scheme existing as of now enabling appointments to be made on compassionate grounds. The mere fact that the death of the petitioners husband occurred prior to the scheme is immaterial as there is no rationale in discriminating eligible persons on the basis of the death of their sole bread winner. The application of the petitioner was alive for consideration when the new scheme was introduced. The death of the petitioner''s husband was also in the proximate past, and time had not elapsed considerably to find that the family has tided over the situation and survived despite the death of the sole bread winner. On the above reasoning, only considering the facts which arise in this particular case and the extenuating circumstances pointed to this Court, which was also noticed by another learned Single Judge in Ext.P3, this Court directs the appointment of the petitioner in a suitable post within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. This shall not be treated as a precedent.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs.