IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 3793 of 2003(B) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SMT.P.VIJAYAKUMARI, 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- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL WING, HEAD OFFICE, 112/J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-2. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STAFF SECTION (WORKMEN), CIRCLE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.) FOR R1,2 SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN FOR R2 SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN FOR R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 3793/2003. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF SCHEME OF EMPLOYMENT. EXT.P2 APPLICATION DT. 4-12-1997. EXT.P3 COMMUNICATION DT. 12-8-1998. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION . EXT.P5 COMMUNICATION DT. 24-10-2001. EXT.P6 LETTER DT. 13-11-2001. EXT.P7 INCOME CERTIFICATE DT. 5-11-2001. EXT.P8 POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 12-11-2001. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF FAMILY PENSION SLIP. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R2A COPY OF LETTER DT. 7-8-1996. EXT.R2B COPY OF SCHEME DT. 14-2-2005. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 3793 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd December, 2008. J U D G M E N T 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 employment scheme. Despite the same, the 2nd petitioner was not favoured with an employment under Ext. P1 scheme. O.P.. No. 3793/03 -: 2 :- 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. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/