Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 333 (KAR)

A. G. RAMYA v. SYNDICATE BANK

2000-05-22

H.L.DATTU

body2000
H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) IN Life Insurance Corporation of India v Mrs. Asha Ramachandra ambekar, the Apex Court was pleased to observe as under. "the Courts shall endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, it should never be done". ( 2 ) KEEPING this salutary principles in view, let me consider the facts in the instant case whether it falls within the scope of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds evolved by the respondent-Syndicate Bank. ( 3 ) THE Human Resources and Development Department (Manpower planning Recruitment and Development Section) has circulated a Circular bearing No. 350/87/bc/hrdd/26/mprds, dated 17-10-1987 to all its branch offices in addition to the earlier circulars dated 11-9-1978, 31-3-1983 and 15-10-1986 on the subject "scheme for Appointment on Compassionate grounds". The scheme provides for appointment of one of the dependents of the deceased employees and also the dependents of the employees opting to retire voluntarily on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years. The circular provides for the procedure to be followed while making appointments on compassionate grounds for the aforesaid two categories of employees. The scheme, apart from others provides for the Bank to offer employment to any one of the dependents of the deceased employee. The expression 'dependent' is defined to mean a son or a widow or a daughter or a brother or a sister of the deceased employee or any other relative nominated by the widow on whom she will be wholly dependent. The Bank is authorised to relax the minimum condition prescribed for recruitment of clerks/subordinate staff. Here also, it is made clear, what could be relaxed is only the age and standard qualification and not the minimum qualification prescribed for the post. The scheme also provides for contingencies like, if the dependent of the deceased employee is a minor and also in cases where the dependent does not possess suitable minimum qualification. I will refer to these clauses in detail a little later. ( 4 ) FACTS of the case in brief are: kumari A. G. Ramya, petitioner in this writ petition, at the time of filing of the petition was only 16 years and therefore, she was represented in the petition by her grandmother and guardian Smt. Saraswathamma. I will refer to these clauses in detail a little later. ( 4 ) FACTS of the case in brief are: kumari A. G. Ramya, petitioner in this writ petition, at the time of filing of the petition was only 16 years and therefore, she was represented in the petition by her grandmother and guardian Smt. Saraswathamma. As on today, she has attained the age of majority. Kumari Ramya, is the daughter of late Smt. A. J. Geetha, who was working as a Clerk in the Byadigi Branch of respondent-Bank. She was married to one Sri G. D. Narasimha Murthy. She died on 30-8-1984 under a tragic circumstance, leaving behind petitioner, who was aged just two years and her sister Kumari Soumya, who was aged just one year. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner's mother expired on account of she being set on fire by her husband Sri G. D. Narasimha murthy. Under these lawful circumstances, petitioner's grandmother and mother of late Smt. Geetha was looking after unfortunate petitioner and her sister. ( 5 ) IMMEDIATELY after the death of her daughter, Smt. Saraswathamma, brought to the notice of the respondents, the tragic premature death of the mother of the petitioner and the same came to be acknowledged by Assistant General Manager of the Regional Office of the Bank and the Divisional Manager, Hubli Division, by their communications dated 5th September, 1984 and 10th September, 1984, respectively. ( 6 ) SMT. Saraswathamma, initiated proceedings in the Court of Principal civil Judge, Shimoga, in G. and W. C. No. 3 of 1984, inter alia, praying to appoint her as the guardian of the petitioner and her sister and further to permit her to retain the custody of her grandchildren, since father of the petitioner could not be trusted with the future of petitioner and her sister. The Trial Court by its order dated 15-4-1985 was pleased to allow the petition by granting the prayers made therein. This order was the subject-matter of Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court at the instance of petitioner's father and the same came to be disposed off as withdrawn on 15-7-1986. Thereafter, the proceedings came to be reopened on an application filed by the petitioner's father and the matter reached finality only on 18-1-1992. This order was the subject-matter of Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court at the instance of petitioner's father and the same came to be disposed off as withdrawn on 15-7-1986. Thereafter, the proceedings came to be reopened on an application filed by the petitioner's father and the matter reached finality only on 18-1-1992. ( 7 ) PETITIONER states that as soon as she came to know the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds prevailing in the respondent- bank, she made a representation dated 10-10-1996 inter alia bringing to the notice of the respondents the death of her mother and also seeking information about the eligibility to secure employment on compassionate grounds. The respondent-Bank by its communication dated 7-2-1993 have rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that her claim is belated and the Bank is unable to consider her representation favourably. Aggrieved by the rejection of her granddaughter's reasonable request, Smt. Saraswathamma had submitted her representation dated 24-4-1997, inter alia requesting the authorities of the respondent-Bank to condone the delay, if any, in making the representation and to provide suitable employment to her granddaughter. The representation so made in my opinion, should melt the heart of even a very stone hearted person and in whom the milk of kindness has completely dried. Therefore, the representation is extracted and the same is as under. "shimoga dated: 24-4-1997. From, s. N. Saraswathamma, s. D. K. Transport, convent Road, shimoga. To, chairman and Managing Director, syndicate Bank, Head Office, manipal. Respected Sir, sub: Appointment on compassionate grounds to the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Geetha employment No. 2926, Request for condonation of delay-Reg. I have been informed by my granddaughter Ramya, d/o my daughter Geetha (deceased) that her request for an appointment in your bank has not been considered vide letter No. PD:hrdd:0088/909. 5498 of Human Resource Development division, Personnel Department, Head Office, Manipal on the ground that the claim was a belated one. In this connection I beg to submit as under. 1. My daughter Geetha married to G. D. Narasimha Murthy while she was working at your Byadigi Branch. The marital relation did not last long in view of Murthy's involvement in the extramarital affairs which ultimately resulted in the suspected murder of my unfortunate daughter. In this connection I beg to submit as under. 1. My daughter Geetha married to G. D. Narasimha Murthy while she was working at your Byadigi Branch. The marital relation did not last long in view of Murthy's involvement in the extramarital affairs which ultimately resulted in the suspected murder of my unfortunate daughter. The sad demise of my daughter forced me to take the custody of the small babies, by knocking the doors of the Courts. The Court has passed the verdict in my favour of the guardianship of the daughters of late geetha. The relevant copy of the judgment appointing the undersigned as guardian in place of father G. D. Narasimha murthy is enclosed for your perusal. 2. Sir, being an illiterate widow having no knowledge of your considering appointments to the legal heirs of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds within the stipulated time, I had to engage myself in nourishing the babies besides running court after Court to protect the interest of the granddaughter kumari Ramya is not yet attained the age of majority and therefore, I had no occasion to search for any employment etc. The court also took considerable time (right from 1984 to 1994) (both civil and Criminal) to restore the guardianship in me. 3. Sir, now my granddaughter baby Ramya is studying in SSLC will be attaining the age of majority has gathered information about the appointment of legal heirs of the deceased, through her friends and well-wishers, and accordingly, sought information from your bank as to the procedure for claim etc. 4. Sir, I am living in Shimoga accompanied by my two granddaughters with meagre income. I am finding it extremely difficult to maintain them and a job is absolutely needed of the hour. My growing age and the deterioration in health forced me to approach your kindselves to condone the delay and consider and request of my granddaughter baby Ramya for an appointment when once she attain the age of majority. 5. Your condoning the delay on the above lines would go a long way in building up the careers of the legal heirs of my deceased daughter and I am sure you do bless the legal heirs of the deceased employee in the ends of natural justice. 6. 5. Your condoning the delay on the above lines would go a long way in building up the careers of the legal heirs of my deceased daughter and I am sure you do bless the legal heirs of the deceased employee in the ends of natural justice. 6. Sir, in Hindu Religion/law right of the child is protected in the mother's womb and my granddaughter baby Ramya should not be deprived of her rightful claim. Sri, your line in reply condoning the delay would be sigh of relief to me at this stage and I look forward for the same. Thanking you, yours faithfully, sd- (SARASWATHAMMA S. N.) i am enclosing all the relevant copies for favour consideration for the claim of appointment". ( 8 ) EVEN this pathetic representation is rejected by the respondent- hank by their cryptic order dated 20-6-1997 once again assigning the same reason which was given to her granddaughter. The order made by the respondent-Bank is as under. "pd:hrdd:0088:909:847 date: 20-6-1997 smt. S. N. Saraswathamma, h. No. 205, Convent Road, sdkt, shimoga 577 201. Madam, sub: Request for appointment to Miss Ramya G. on compassionate grounds. We have for reference your letter dated 24th April, 1997, requesting us to reconsider our decision, condoning the delay in submitting the application. In this regard, we have to express our inability to consider your request, since the belated claim for compassionate appointment cannot be admitted as per Government guidelines. Yours faithfully, sd/- (V. A. Joseph) personnel Manager" ( 9 ) PETITIONER being aggrieved by this arbitrary, wholly unfair and unjust treatment meted out to her by respondent-Bank, is before this court, inter alia seeking the following reliefs. They are. I. A writ to quash the order of the respondent-Bank in no. PD:hrdd:0088:909:847, dated 20-6-1997. II. To direct the respondent-Bank to consider the case of the petitioner most sympathetically and on compassionate grounds, by condoning the delay, if any, in filing the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. ( 10 ) RIVAL contentions: Sri P. S. Rajgopal, the learned Counsel for petitioner most forcefully and with a sense of commitment submits that the respondent-Bank had a duty and a moral obligation to inform the guardian of the petitioner about the scheme and the procedure prevailing in the respondent-Bank for appointment on compassionate grounds and further ought to have advised her to make appropriate representation within the prescribed period. Since that onus is not discharged by the respondent-Bank, it could not have rejected the request made by the petitioner and her grandmother for appointment on compassionate grounds. Secondly, it is stated that under the scheme framed by the board of Directors of the Bank, the Bank has the power to condone the delay, if any, in making the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Since the respondents have not properly exercised their jurisdiction which is entrusted to them, their action is not only arbitrary but wholly unfair and unjust. Lastly, it is stated that the action of the Bank in rejecting the reasonable request of the petitioner is manifestly unfair and unjust and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent-Bank is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. Per contra, Sri Ram das, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Bank sought to justify the action of the Bank, by contending that since the petitioner and the grandmother of the petitioner did not file the application requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds within the time prescribed in the scheme, petitioner is not entitled to any one of the reliefs sought in the writ petition. ( 11 ) HAVING carefully considered the rival contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties to the Us, the following issues arise for consideration and decision of this Court. They are. I. Whether under the scheme, the Bank has any obligation to inform the dependents of the deceased employee about the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds?ii. Whether the respondent-Bank could condone the delay, if any, in filing necessary application seeking employment on compassionate grounds under the scheme?iii. What order? ( 12 ) RE. Issue No. I: to appreciate the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel on this issue, in my view, the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds of the respondent-Bank requires to be noticed. The scheme is approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank. The scheme is circulated by circular dated 13-10-1987. This scheme is in addition to the earlier circulars dated 11-9-1978, 31-3-1983 and 15-10-1986. The scheme is approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank. The scheme is circulated by circular dated 13-10-1987. This scheme is in addition to the earlier circulars dated 11-9-1978, 31-3-1983 and 15-10-1986. The object of the scheme is to offer appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds and also to one of de- pendents of employees opting to retire on medical grounds voluntarily before attaining the age of 55 years. The scheme provides for procedures for such appointments. The scheme specifically envisages that it is for the Bank to offer employment to any of the dependents of the deceased employee. Clause 1 i. 5 authorises the competent authorities of the Bank to relax in deserving cases the age and the standard of qualifications but not the nunimum qualifications. Clause 1. 1. 6 of the scheme is relevant for the purpose of the case and the same is as under. "1. 1. 6: In case the dependent of the deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the Bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority provided a request is made to the Bank by the family of the deceased employee and the same may be considered subject to the rules prevailing at the time of consideration". ( 13 ) A reading of the aforesaid clause would clearly indicate that, in a case where the dependent of the deceased employee is a minor, the Bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. Proviso appended to this clause puts a rider to such appointment by suggesting that a request must have been made to the Bank by the family of the deceased employee. Clause 1. 1. 7 gives discretion to the Bank to grant sufficient time, if the dependent of the deceased employee to be offered appointment does not possess suitable minimum qualification. Even here also a request must have been made to the Bank by the family of the deceased employee. Clause 1. 1. 8 suggests that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be preferred within one year from the date of the death of the employee. Even here also a request must have been made to the Bank by the family of the deceased employee. Clause 1. 1. 8 suggests that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be preferred within one year from the date of the death of the employee. ( 14 ) ON receipt of such information namely, the death of the employee, it is for the office or the branch where the employee was working, to inform the concerned section in the Head Office of the Bank besides informing the other authorities. Clause 1. 2. 1, apart from this also obligates the Branch Office to forward the aforesaid information in a prescribed proforma by clearly indicating the liabilities and the mode of repayment by the legal heirs including the dependent to be offered appointment. This information is also required to be sent to the concerned zonal Office by the Branch Office. ( 15 ) THE Head Office on receipt of such information from the Branch office where the deceased employee was working will forward 04. 85 to the Branch Office to obtain from the applicant, who is dependent on the deceased employee and who is nominated to take up the appointment under the scheme. On receipt of 04. 85, it is for the Branch Office to obtain an application in writing from the dependent of the deceased employee, proposing the name of the dependent, who is to be offered appointment and his/her relationship with deceased employee along with the other documents and details. There is further obligation on the branch Office to obtain all the requirements stipulated under Clause 1. 2. 3 and forward the same to the Head Office of the Bank. Clause 1. 2. 5 states that the offer of appointment will be made by the concerned Zonal office. ( 16 ) THE aforesaid scheme is now replaced by another scheme which has come into force with effect from 1-6-1999. The revised scheme is known as "scheme for payment of lumpsum compensation/relief in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee/employees retiring on medical grounds. ( 16 ) THE aforesaid scheme is now replaced by another scheme which has come into force with effect from 1-6-1999. The revised scheme is known as "scheme for payment of lumpsum compensation/relief in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee/employees retiring on medical grounds. The scheme also authorises the competent authority to consider appointment on compassionate grounds to one of the dependents of the family in extreme cases of hardship, where the competent authority is satisfied that the compensation payable is insufficient to meet the needs of the family and further subject to the guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time. In such cases, the family of the deceased employee will not be entitled to any compensation. The scheme also envisages that the ap- pointments will be made by the Bank with the prior sanction of the chairman and Managing Director or in his absence Executive Director. Under this scheme, the requests for appointment should be made within three months from the date of the death of the employee and this condition may be waived by the Chairman and Managing Director and in his absence, the Executive Director on the merits of each case. A conjoint reading of these clauses under these two schemes, in my opinion, gives enough discretion in the highest authority of the Bank to tone down the rigor of these provisions while using his sympathetic discretion in case of an application filed beyond the time prescribed in the scheme. ( 17 ) KEEPING in view these beneficial schemes, let me now once again briefly refer to the fact situation in the present case. The undisputed facts are, petitioner's mother was employed as clerical staff in the byadigi Branch of the respondent-Bank. She met with a tragic death. Upon her demise, it was petitioner's grandmother who had come to the rescue of the petitioner and her younger sister. It is also not in dispute that it is petitioner's grandmother who had informed the Branch Office of the Bank where petitioner's mother was working about the sad demise of her daughter. It is also undisputed that the petitioner's grandmother was illiterate lady and had no sufficient means to take care of the petitioner and her sister. It is also not in dispute that it is petitioner's grandmother who had informed the Branch Office of the Bank where petitioner's mother was working about the sad demise of her daughter. It is also undisputed that the petitioner's grandmother was illiterate lady and had no sufficient means to take care of the petitioner and her sister. On receipt of her information of the death of one of its employees, the Branch and the Zonal Office except offering lip sympathies and condolences, had not even cared to inform the petitioner's grandmother about the scheme prevailing in the Bank for appointment on compassionate grounds and also the requirement of making necessary application to keep the offer of appointment open till the minors attain the age of majority. In my opinion, though it is not specifically provided in Clause 1. 1. 6 of the scheme, there is an obligation on the employer to inform the dependents of the deceased employee about the beneficial scheme providing for appointment on compassionate grounds for the simple reason that these beneficial schemes are not available in all the Public Sector and Private Sector undertakings. The illiterate persons like petitioner's grandmother will not be aware of such schemes and in my opinion, it was the moral obligation of the Branch office of the respondent-Bank to have brought to the notice of the petitioner's grandmother about the existence of schemes providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and the necessity to make application to keep the offer of appointment open till the petitioner attains the age of majority. This onus, in my opinion has not been discharged by the Branch Office of the respondent-Bank. In my view, the Branch and the Zonal Office of the Bank while acknowledging the death of its employees could have brought to the notice of the dependents about the existence of a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds of the deceased employee instead of extending lip sympathies to the departed soul. We have the habit of extending our concern to the dead soul which cannot hear, but fail to extend our helping hand to those, who are still living and who really require our assistance. This is our accepted culture, and this seems to be the order of the day. ( 18 ) SECONDLY, in my opinion, the Branch Office had also an obligation under Clause 1. 2. This is our accepted culture, and this seems to be the order of the day. ( 18 ) SECONDLY, in my opinion, the Branch Office had also an obligation under Clause 1. 2. 1 of the scheme to have informed the death of one of its employee and the dependent, who requires to be offered appointment on compassionate grounds. Even this seems to have not been done by the branch Office. Since all these steps have not been taken by the Branch office of the respondent-Bank, in my view, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner and her grandmother for appointment on compassionate grounds on the sole ground that the request is belated one. In my view, in view of all these circumstances, the Bank had an obligation to inform the dependents of the deceased employee about the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, I answer the first issue in positive and in favour of the petitioner. ( 19 ) RE. Issue No. II: A plain construction of the existing scheme may not authorise the competent authority to condone the delay in filing the application to keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority but a conjoint reading of all the clauses in the scheme and the subsequent revised scheme would give a clear indication that there is some discretion to the highest authority of the Bank to condone delay, if any, in requesting appointment on compassionate grounds depending on the merits of each case. The respondent-Bank instead of using this discretion has mechanically rejected the request made by the petitioner and her grandmother literally following the language employed in the scheme. In my opinion, the respondent-Bank should have taken into consideration the plea of the petitioner and the plight expressed by petitioner's grandmother in her representation and should have come to the aid of this unfortunate family, who are deprived of motherly love and affection and undependable estranged father. Therefore, I answer the second issue also in positive and in favour of the petitioner. ( 20 ) IN the result, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders made by the respondent-Bank dated 20-6-1997 is quashed. Therefore, I answer the second issue also in positive and in favour of the petitioner. ( 20 ) IN the result, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders made by the respondent-Bank dated 20-6-1997 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the representation filed by the petitioner and her grandmother in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the course of this order. I only hope that the respondents would do justice to the parties and come to their aid if it is permissible and possible. This exercise the respondents are directed to complete within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this court's order. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .