Compassionate appointment claims must prioritize the most suitable dependent without impractical conditions like requiring a NOC from rival claimants.

COMMON JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J

These writ appeals have been filed challenging the judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed in W.P.(C)Nos.44209 of 2023 & 38577 of 2023.

2. W.A.No.429 of 2025 is filed by the writ petitioner in 38577 of 2023 and W.A.No.503 of 2025 is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C)No.44209 of 2023 challenging the judgment mentioned afore.

3. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals, are as follows:

The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38577 of 2023, Ms.Soundarya, is the daughter of one late Sri.Sreekumar P.N., in his first wife. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 44209 of 2023, Smt.Geetha Devi, is the second wife of the said late Sreekumar. Sri.Sreekumar P.M. died in harness on 16.11.2022 while working as a Security Guard in the respondent bank. Both the writ petitioners raised a claim for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme of the State Bank of India, after the death of Sreekumar, by claiming that they are the dependents of the deceased. Since rival claims were raised, the State Bank of India was not in a position to entertain the applications and requested the parties to arrive at a settlement with each other as per Ext.P5 letter dated 07.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.38577 of 2023. Aggrieved by the afore letter, the daughter of Sreekumar Ms.Soundarya, filed W.P.(C)No.21787 of 2023, challenging Ext.P5 as referred above. This Court by judgment dated 14.08.2023, set aside Ext.P5 letter and directed the competent authority of the State Bank of India to hear Ms.Soundarya and also the 2^nd respondent therein Smt.Geetha Devi and assess their rival claims and decide the issue. Since no notice was issued to Smt.Geetha Devi in W.P.(C) No.21787 of 2023, she filed a Review Petition as R.P.No.1010 of 2023 in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge on 09.10.2023, disposed of the Review Petition without disturbing the judgment sought to be reviewed, by finding that no prejudice is caused to the review petitioner. Thereafter, the Bank in compliance with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.21787 of 2023 directed Ms.Soundarya, as per Ext.P8 letter dated 18.10.2023 in W.P.(C) No.38577 of 2023 to submit certain documents and details, to arrive at an appropriate decision as directed by this Court. Immediately, Ms.Soundarya filed W.P.(C) No.38577 of 2023 praying that a declaration may be granted to the effect that she is entitled for compassionate appointment untrammelled by the requirements made in Ext.P8. In the meantime, State Bank of India passed Ext.P19 order dated 12.12.2023 (in W.P.(C) No.44209 of 2023), finding that Ms.Soundarya, Smt.Geetha Sreekumar and her daughter Parvathy Sreekumar are the dependent family members of late Sreekumar. The Bank also found that Ms.Soundarya is better qualified on account of her educational qualifications and she was given the first chance to avail compassionate appointment. It was also mentioned in the order that if Ms.Soundarya fails to comply with the requirements, the appointment will be given to Smt.Geetha Sreekumar. It is aggrieved by Ext.P19 order, Smt.Geetha Sreekumar filed W.P.(C) No.44209 of 2023.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions and the materials on record, by judgment dated 13.02.2025 dismissed both W.P.(C)No.38577 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.44209 of 2023.

5. Heard Adv.Ajeesh S.Brite, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.429 of 2025, Adv.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.503 of 2025 and Adv.P.Gopal, the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Bank of India.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.N