IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33835 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.HABEENA. R., AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.LATE PATHUMMA BEEVI, KOCHUMANGALUVILA, KUTTICHIRA, TKMC P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN SMT.P.ROSAMMA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGION V, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33835/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF APPLICATION OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10/11/2001. P2 : COPY OF PROCEEDIGNS NO.AGM/V/T/STAFF-1/512 DATED 11/02/2006. P3 : COPY OF O.M.NO.14014/6/94-ESTT. 09/10/1998. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23/06/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R1(b) : COPY OF SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT UNDER THE RESPONDENT BANK. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.33835 of 2006 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner’s parents were employees of the 1st respondent Bank. Her father died long ago and her mother, who was working in the Bank as a Cashier, also died of cancer on 19/01/2001. It is stated that at the time of her death, the petitioner was a minor. Before attaining majority, she submitted Ext.P1 application for employment on compassionate grounds in November, 2001 itself. However that application was not entertained and subsequently in 2004 she was asked to make an application in the proforma prescribed by the Bank. It was accordingly that the petitioner submitted Ext.R1(a) application dated 23/06/2004. The Bank considered the application and rejected her request by Ext.P2 communication dated 11/02/2006 without stating any reason for rejection of her application. It is challenging Ext.P2, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Although no reasons have been stated in Ext.P2, reasons are sought to be supplied through the counter affidavit filed by the WP(C) No.33835/2006 -2- respondent Bank, where the endeavour of the Bank is to contend that on account of terminal benefits and other income received by the family of the deceased, she is not in financial distress justifying the claim. This contention of the Bank is sought to be contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that from out of the terminal benefits received, after discharging the liability incurred for treating her mother, the family was left with a balance of only Rs.90,000/-. It is also stated that apart from that the family has only 12 cents of land. It is therefore contended that the reasons based on which her application has been rejected are invalid and illegal. 3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank referring to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed contended that the petitioner has no financial difficulty as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel also referred to me to the financial position of the family as indicated in Ext.R1(a) application to contend that the family was not in distress. 4. However, a reading of Ext.R1(a) itself shows that it is the financial position of the family, which is mentioned therein and it is WP(C) No.33835/2006 -3- not that of the petitioner alone. Therefore, the financial position as disclosed in Ext.R1(a) by itself may not be sufficient to indicate that the petitioner is not in distress. Irrespective of all these, it is seen that Ext.P2 order rejecting the petitioner’s application does not contain any reason for such rejection. It therefore indicates that there has been total non application of mind on the claim of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I feel that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered. This is all the more so for the reason that in Ext.R1(a), the Chief Manager himself has recommended the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore, I quash Ext.P2 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.R1(a) application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, duly adverting to all relevant factors and the provisions of Ext.R1(b) Scheme for compassionate appointment. This the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg