Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right; it requires proper assessment of financial need and procedural adherence in eligibility determination.

JUDGMENT :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 assails the judgment dated 28.03.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.12206/2004, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are that the first appellant is the mother of the second appellant. The husband of the first appellant, C.K. Babu, while working as a sub staff in the service of the Bank, died in- harness on 09.03.2001. The first appellant did not possess the formal educational qualifications required for employment under the Employment Assistance Scheme. Therefore, she submitted an application requesting that employment be provided to the second appellant, who possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment as a Clerk. The deceased, C.K. Babu, was the sole breadwinner of the family and owned only one asset, i.e., land measuring 5 cents with a house constructed thereon, which was built by availing a loan. At the time of his death, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 9,048/-. Following his demise, a family pension of Rs. 3,700/- per month was sanctioned, in addition to a gratuity amount of Rs. 1,55,241/-. However, after seven years, the family pension was reduced by fifty percent.

Appellants’ submission

3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, inasmuch as there was no fault on the part of the appellants in approaching the authorities seeking compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the deceased employee passed away in the year 2001, and a proper application was submitted in the same year itself.

3.1 Thereafter, after a lapse of approximately three years, vide Ext.P7 dated 04.03.2004, the respondents informed the appellants that the request for compassionate appointment of her son could not be acceded to, in view of the directives received from the Board in this regard. However, the appellants were offered a lump sum financial relief of Rs. 2 lakhs, subject to the condition that no further representations on the matter would be entertained. Subsequently, the appellants approached this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that more than one and a half decades had elapsed since the cause of action arose, and therefore, no relief could be granted at that stage.

3.2 The learned counsel further submitted that, as per Ext.P2 Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, in cases where an employee passes away before attaining the age of 50 years, the family shall be given an option to choose between compassionate appointment and lump sum financial relief, in accordance with Clause II of the Scheme Respondent’s submission

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank contended that the appellants were receiving family pension, which coupled with interest income of the benefits received by the appellants after the deductions made towards loans and other dues, would be above the last drawn pay of the deceased employee. Further it is submitted that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.T. Latheesh, [(2006) 7 SCC 350]

4.1 Furthermore, the learned Counsel submits that compassionate employment is not made as a matter of right to be claimed under the Scheme. The retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the request for compassionate appointment. On total consideration of the benefit