IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2600 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P. VIJAYAKUNARI, W/O. LATE A. MADHUSOODANAN, THEKKEMANNANGHAT HOUSE, FLORICAN ROAD, KARAPARAMBA.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 010. 2. VIDHYA.T.M, D/O. LATE A.MADHUSOODANAN, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH SMT.KURICHIYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION, HEAD OFFICE, 112/J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK FOR R1 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 2600/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.31.10.97. P2. COPY OF THE SCHEME. P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.12.8.98. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.24.10.01. P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.13.11.01. P7. COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE. P8. COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. P9. COPY OF THE FAMILY PENSION SLIP. P10. COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF LUMP SUM EXGRATIA. P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.4.7.07. P12. COPY OF THE PETITION TD.27.7.O7. P13. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.4.08. P14. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ON 3793/03. P15. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 17921/2005 sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 2600 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The husband of the 1st petitioner died on 30.10.1997 while working as an employee of the respondent bank. The petitioners filed O.P.No.3793/2003 before this Court seeking compassionate employment, which was disposed of by Ext.P14 judgment, which reads thus; 'The petitioners are the widow and daughter of late Sri. A. Madhusoodanan, who was an employee of the Canara Bank, who died in harness on 30-10-1997 in a road accident. After the death of Sri. Madhusoodanan, the 1st the petitioner submitted Ext. P2 application seeking employment to the 2nd petitioner under Ext.P1 compassionate employment scheme of the Bank on 4-12-1997. That application was rejected by Ext. P3 order dated 12-8-1998 on the ground that there are no indigent circumstances warranting employment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner again submitted Ext. P4 representation in this regard, pursuant to which the 1st petitioner was directed to furnish the following details by Ext. P5 communication dated 24-10-2001: “i. Details of assets/income derived from the assets if any along with a certificate of Possession/Income certificate issued by the Village authorities in proof of the same. ii. Details of other employment if any secured by any of the dependents of late Madhusoodanan subsequent to declining her application for employment of compassionate grounds in the Bank. iii. Amount of family pension drawn by her at present from the Bank. iv) Whether she has preferred any claim with MACT. If the claim has been settled, kindly inform the amount received in settlement.” Thereafter, the petitioners submitted Exts.P6, P7, P8 and P9 documents to prove the financial circumstances of the petitioners which, according to them, would show that the 2nd the petitioner is eminently qualified for appointment under the compassionate 2 employment scheme. Despite the same, the 2nd petitioner was not favoured with an employment under Ext. P1 scheme. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed stating inter alia that a new scheme Ext. R2(b) has come into force with effect from 14-2- 2005 and therefore the petitioners can seek only benefit as per the new scheme. 3. This Court, on 4-7-2007, passed the following interim order: “Heard. The petitioners may file an application for giving the benefit of Ext. R2(b) Scheme without prejudice to their contentions in this original petition before the competent authority of the Bank within one month from today. In that event, the Bank will consider the claim for payment of ex- gratia amount in lieu of appointment under the dying-in- harness scheme. In case the offer is attractive, the petitioners can receive the same in lieu of employment.” After considering the contentions of both sides, I am satisfied that the original petition itself can be disposed of in terms of the said interim order. Ordered accordingly.' 2. Subsequently, in accordance with the said judgment, the claim of the petitioners for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate employment was considered and rejected on the ground that the interest which the terminal benefits of the deceased employee on investing the same in fixed deposit together with other specified income of the family, would exceed 60% of the last drawn salary of the employee. The petitioners are challenging the same. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioners do not now dispute that as per the scheme the petitioners would be eligible for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate employment only if the interest on the terminal benefits of the employee, if the same was invested in a fixed deposit in 3 a bank together with other specified income of the family would not exceed 60% of the last drawn salary of the employee. But the petitioners submit that if the petitioners are not entitled to ex gratia payment their claim for compassionate allowance should be considered. 5. I am of opinion that after having suffered Ext.P14 judgment, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to revert back to the claim for compassionate employment, insofar as they have abandoned the claim for compassionate employment in favour of a claim for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate employment. Even apart from that, ex gratia payment is in lieu of compassionate employment and therefore, if the family is not eligible for ex gratia payment, the 2nd petitioner is not entitled to compassionate employment also. Since admittedly, the petitioners are not entitled to ex gratia payment in accordance with the terms of the scheme, I do not think that the petitioners can raise any further claim in respect thereof. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge