Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 759 (AP)

H. Teena Pratyusha v. The Chief General Manager

2011-09-12

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
Judgment : The mother of the petitioner was working as Cashier in Proddutur Branch of State Bank of India. She expired on 20.11.1997 leaving behind her, the petitioner, her younger brother and their father. The petitioner was minor at that time. It is stated that the father of the petitioner contracted second marriage and neglected to maintain the petitioner and her brother and that they have grown up with the help of their paternal uncle. 2. The respondents sanctioned monthly pension at the rate of Rs.1,535/- per month to the petitioner from 21.11.1997. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 17.02.2011, to the Assistant General Manager, respondent No.3 herein, with a request to provide employment on compassionate grounds. She stated that on being deserted by her father, she is finding it difficult to maintain herself and that she has acquired Post Graduation Degree in Microbiology. Her grievance is that the respondents are not considering her case and a writ of mandamus is sought in that connection. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The mother of the petitioner died, while in service of the State Bank of India, in the year 1997. A scheme was in force at that time providing for employment of the dependants of the deceased employees, on compassionate grounds. Since the petitioner was a minor at that time, she could not avail the benefit thereof. The Bank extended the financial benefits that are otherwise permissible in law, to the petitioner. 5. It was only in the year 2011, that the petitioner submitted an application with a request to provide employment on compassionate grounds. There was no positive response to the request. Hence, it needs to be examined as to whether the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered in the light of the Rules that are in vogue in the respondents’ organisation. 6. The scheme for providing employment on compassionate grounds is an extraordinary measure, to enable the family to tide over the difficulties, that arise on account of the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family. In case the family is otherwise self-sufficient, the benefit cannot be claimed as of right. 7. Wherever such schemes exist, invariably, a condition is stipulated to the effect that the benefit must be claimed within one year from the date of death of the employee. In case the family is otherwise self-sufficient, the benefit cannot be claimed as of right. 7. Wherever such schemes exist, invariably, a condition is stipulated to the effect that the benefit must be claimed within one year from the date of death of the employee. In case the dependant is a minor, the time is enlarged to a reasonable extent. 8. According to the scheme framed by the respondents, no claim can be maintained after expiry of six years from the date of death of the employee. This is so even if the dependant has attained the age of majority after six years. The reason underlying this appears to be that if the dependant was minor of a tender age, the responsibility rests upon the surviving parent and that the fact that the family can maintain itself for a period of six years, that too, with the help of the death/retirement benefits extended to it, it may not need any further help. It is also to be noted that the recognition of right of an individual to seek employment on compassionate grounds irrespective of any time limit would slowly turn out to be a right of succession. A benevolent scheme evolved for the benefit of the needy, to enable one, to tide over the difficulty for a limited period cannot be permitted to assume such a shape. 9. Apart from the said reason, in the instant case, the petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2006 and she has chosen to submit application five years thereafter. Her application is filed 14 years after the expiry of her mother. Viewed from any angle, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. 10. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.