THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Assailing the impugned order dated 13.08.2005 passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment was rejected, the present writ petition was filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the legal heirs of one Late G. Solomon Raju, who worked as a Head Cashier in respondent No.2 Bank for almost thirty three years, had passed away on 08.01.2005. Since the only breadwinner in their family was no more, to eke out a livelihood, petitioner No.1 made a representation to respondent No.2 on 22.02.2005, seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her eldest daughter, i.e., petitioner No.2 herein, in a suitable post. However, the said application was rejected by respondent No.2 on 13.08.2005, stating that the petitioners were paid the terminal benefits and that they were also being continuously paid the family pension. Challenging the said rejection order, the present writ petition was filed.

3. Heard Ms. Mercy Vijaya, learned counsel, representing Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri V.U.S.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased husband of petitioner No.1, while in service, had opted for pension, and therefore, after his demise, the petitioners were paid the terminal benefits and family pension, which was their only source of livelihood. However, during October, 2004, petitioner No.1's son met with an accident and underwent treatment, for which, huge amounts were incurred, which were borrowed as loans from third parties at exorbitant rates of interest. Thus, petitioner No.1 submitted an application, duly enclosing a copy of the no- objection certificate given by her other children, and sought compassionate appointment in a suitable post in favour of petitioner No.2, who is the eldest daughter of the deceased employee, with D.C.C.P. and B.Com qualifications. However, without considering the financial status of their family, the respondents have passed the present impugned order dated 13.08.2005, erroneously rejecting the application for compassionate appointment, on the ground that the terminal benefits and family pension was being paid to them. Therefore, it is prayed to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a scheme for appointment of dependants of a deceased employee of the respondent Bank was in existence w.e.f., 01.01.1979, which was modified periodically. According to the scheme prevailing at the time of the demise of petitioner No.1's husband, mere death of an employee in harness does not automatically entitle his family members for compassionate appointment. The respondent Bank offers compassionate appointment only when it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is so poor that they cannot meet the crisis. However, the petitioners do not fulfill the said criteria. Further, the aforesaid scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds was also discontinued and got replaced with the new ‘Scheme for Payment of Ex- gratia Lumpsum Amount’. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected vide impugned order dated 13.08.2005. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner’s husband had passed away on 08.01.2005, and petitioner No.1 submitted her representation dated 22.02.2005 to respondent No.2, seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her eldest daughter, i.e., petitioner No.2 herein, which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 13.08.2005. According to the respondents, as per the norms prevailing at that relevant point of ti