JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment rendered on 09.11.2016 has dismissed W.P(C) No.9323/2008 filed by the appellants in the matter of claim for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 09.11.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the above writ petition (Civil), the appellants have preferred the above intra-court appeal under Sec.5(i)

of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. Heard Sri.R.Harishankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the W.A/petitioners in the W.P(C) and Sri.Amal George, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India appearing for the respondents in the W.A/respondents in the W.P(C).

3. The case is one relation to the claim of the appellants for compassionate appointment. The husband of the 1st appellant and the father of the 2nd appellant was an employee of the State Bank of India and while in service he had died on 19.07.1996. Thereafter, the 1st appellant had submitted application seeking appointment of her first son, Sri.Balakrishnan on compassionate ground in the respondent-State Bank of India under the compassionate appointment scheme and the said application was rejected by the Bank, as the first son was over-aged for appointment in the Bank and the petitioner was then instructed to submit an alternate proposal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the said rejection of the claim of the first son was made by the respondent-Bank as per order dated 16.04.1997 and 06.11.1998. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the 1st appellant had then preferred a writ petition as O.P No.23252/1998 before this Court. This Court noted that in Ext.P-5 order dated 06.11.1998, it is seen that the Assistant General Manager of the respondent-State Bank of India was instructed by the appropriate authority that as the petitioner had not submitted any alternate proposal despite granting two years' time and hence, the competent authority was of the view that there was no crisis warranting immediate relief and hence, the matter was being closed. This Court noted that the said order dated 06.11.1998 was issued by the Assistant General Manager and therefore, it is for the petitioner to approach the General Manager, who is the competent authority by submitting an alternate proposal pointing out the case warranting compassionate appointment. According to the 1st appellant, an alternate proposal was then submitted seeking compassionate appointment in favour of the second son. From the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it appears that the case of the appellants is to the effect that, at that time, the 1st appellant had mooted an alternate proposal seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her second son. However, the respondent-Bank has taken the clear stand that no such alternate proposal was given by the 1st appellant and that this would clearly show that the family of the deceased was not in a crisis warranting any relief by way of compassionate appointment. Later, it appears that the 1st appellant had submitted representation dated 26.10.2005, seeking appointment of her daughter Smt.Bindhu (2nd appellant herein) on compassionate grounds. A reading of Ext.P-3 proceedings would show that the 1st appellant in her representation dated 26.10.2005 had stated that her seven children are maintained by the family pension and she has no other means to look after her family. The respondent-General Manager of the bank has found in Ext.P-3 rejection order dated

29.01.2008 that the respondent-Bank is not inclined to accept the said submission of the 1st appellant, as all her children are married and appear to be having separate family establishments and further that, the 1st appellant's younger daughter, Smt.Bindu (2nd appellant) had got married to a person employed in a Gulf country. The respondent-Bank authorities has taken the stand that merely because the 2nd appellant, who is the married daught