IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 599 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37809/2003 Dated 29/01/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( A & 1), INSPECTION DEPARTMENT,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------- ASWATHY C,D/O.LATE K0CHU KRISHNAN, RESIDIGN AT ARCHANA, THONNAKKAL,MANJAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.599 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the appellant-Bank to consider the respondent for employment in the Bank on compassionate ground. We have heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Advocate Sri.N.Unnikrishnan appearing for the respondent. 2. Respondent's father while serving as an Officer in the appellant-Bank died of kidney failure after undergoing protracted treatment for several years in different hospitals. When he died on 26.7.2000, respondent was a Degree student and later after taking Degree, she applied for a job in the Bank on compassionate ground. The Bank after conducting enquiry and after taking into account the terminal benefits received by the legal heirs of the deceased namely, respondent and her mother, came to the conclusion that respondent and her family are not in penury entitling her for a job under compassionate W.A. No.599/2010 2 ground under the norms of the Bank. The main grounds on which compassionate employment is declined to the respondent is the family pension received by the family and the income of respondent's widowed mother as a clerk in a school which fetches her Rs.4,800/- per month. The total family income towards family pension and salary of the widow is something like Rs.9,600/-. It is not known whether the respondent's mother is still in service or whether she has already retired at the age of 55. Counsel for the appellants referred to the details of assets and liabilities of the family of the deceased contained in Ext.P4 statement furnished by the respondent. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand referred to the findings in the judgment wherein the learned Single Judge after considering assets and liabilities of the deceased came to the conclusion that the net balance available is only around Rs.2.5 lakhs. The main ground of challenge raised by the appellants is that there is no proof of the liabilities claimed by the respondent which are borrowals to the extent of Rs.7.5 lakhs shown in the statement of assets and liabilities. However, counsel for the respondent referred to the medical bills and other documents produced W.A. No.599/2010 3 which show that deceased father of the respondent was suffering from kidney failure and he was admitted to several hospitals and was undergoing dialysis rather on a regular basis. Respondent's specific case accepted by the learned Single Judge based on documents produced is that the family had spent around Rs.16 lakhs towards six years' protracted treatment of the respondent's father before his death in several hospitals for kidney failure. 3. After hearing both sides and after going through the findings of the learned Single Judge and the records produced in court which reflect the financial position of the family of the deceased at the time of death and thereafter, we feel the Bank's case that the respondent's family is not in penury cannot be accepted. Counsel for the respondent also brought to our notice the terrible tragedy suffered by the family which is death of the only brother of the respondent who was 4th year Engineering student in the year 2009. Counsel for the respondent submitted that after the tragic death of the respondent's father, the family sustained education of the respondent's only brother in the Engineering College at a heavy cost and in the prime of his life he also W.A. No.599/2010 4 died in an accident while in the 4th year of study in the College. Counsel also submitted that respondent's mother would have by now retired from her job as a Clerk in a school or she will be atleast on the verge of retirement leading to reduction in monthly income. The learned Single Judge also stated that the respondent's case of massive expenditure in treatment of her late father leading to debts cannot be overruled for more than one reason. Firstly, even though appellant- Bank has a case that they have made reimbursements, the details furnished before the Single Judge show that the reimbursement is only upto Rs.30,000/- whereas the claim of expenditure for treatment of the deceased for six years by the respondent and her mother is as much as Rs.16 lakhs. We do not think there is any need for us to consider the meticulous accounts because for the last several years medical treatment has been very expensive in all private hospitals. Therefore, court can easily assume and estimate the probable expenditure incurred for treatment of respondent's father for six years in expensive private hospitals for kidney failure. On the whole, the family is quite devastated and is not financially sound. So far as immovable W.A. No.599/2010 5 properties are concerned, all what is claimed by the Bank is that respondent and her mother together have a house to live and there is no other claim of ownership of landed properties or other buildings. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that from out of total savings, respondent's family will be getting only Rs.2.5 lakhs. In view of our findings above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants-Bank to consider appointment of the respondent in the Bank on compassionate ground. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms