HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.847 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kumar) Vijaya Bank, the officers of which are the respondent in W.P.No.17456 of 2000, is in appeal against the order dated 28/12/2002 passed therein directing the respondent to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner herein for compassionate appointment setting aside the proceedings dated 02/11/1998 impugned in the writ petition whereby such request was denied. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent/writ petitioner was the adopted son of a deceased employee, Smt.A.Ramanama of the bank. She worked as a part-time sweeper and died in harness on 30/04/1993, at that time the respondent was a minor. He made a representation to the bank on 29/10/1993 seeking appointment to a suitable post on compassionate grounds. It appears that the said application was processed and the Head Office of the bank by its proceedings dated 30/12/1993 communicated to its Regional Office rejected the request of the respondent on the ground that the deceased employee, Ramanamma had no dependents except her adopted son and that his request may be considered on his attaining the age of majority. However, the bank did not communicate these proceedings to the respondent. While the matter stood thus, the respondent obtained a decree from a competent Civil Court on 26/03/1998 recognizing him as the sold dependent of the deceased employee, Ramanamma. Based upon the said decree, the respondent once again approached the bank by his application dated 04/09/1998 seeking appointment to a suitable post on compassionate grounds. The respondent did not make any reference therein to his earlier application dated 29/10/1993. By the proceedings dated 02/11/1998, impugned in the writ petition, the bank rejected the request of the respondent on the ground that the same was belated being more than 5 years after the expiry of the employment. The said proceeding was challenged before the learned Judge and the learned Judge, having taken note of the above stated facts and circumstances, observed that the scheme whereby compassionate appointment was effected to the dependents of deceased employee was a social piece of legislation and could be extended even to the persons nominated by the deceased employee. In such circumstances, the learned Judge is of the opinion that the respondent stood on a better footing being an adopted son of the deceased employee and had made his first application in accordance with rules immediately after the death of his adoptive mother. He also took care to obtain proper certification of his being the dependent of the deceased employee as is evidence from the Civil Court decree dated 26/03/1998 obtained by him from the competent Civil Court. In such circumstances, the learned Judge is of the opinion that the rejection of the respondent’s request on the ground of delay was not tenable on facts. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that in spite of interim directions being granted by this Court in the course of the proceedings, the same were not complied with. Stating so, the learned Judge set aside the impugned proceedings rejecting the application of the respondent and directed that his case should be considered as per the scheme for appointment for suitable post within a time frame. Sri Ajay Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant bank, contended that the respondent was not forthcoming with all the details as is evident from the fact that he suppressed the filing of the first application when he moved his second application on the basis of the Civil Court decree. He therefore contended that the respondent was not entitled to any relief having approached the authorities with suppression. We are, however, not inclined to accept this submission. It is manifest from the record that it is the bank which failed to communicate the proceedings dated 30/12/1993 to the respondent which require him to make an application after attaining the age of majority. Having failed to take the respondent on notice about this decision of the Head Office of the bank, it is not open to the bank to set the ground of delay for rejecting the second application of the respondent. It is stated that as per the scheme applicable the respondent would have to be interfered to assess his suitability for appointment to any particular post in the service of the bank. We are therefore of the opinion to direct the bank to consider the respondent in accordance with the scheme and interview him to assess his suitability for any particular post in the bank and appoint him to such post. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to above observation, we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ Date: 02-09-2009 SANJAY KUMAR, J SKM