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. 33071 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, BEENA NIVAS, KOYILANDY P.O., PANTHALAYANI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SECTION, PERSONNEL WING, HEAD OFFICE, 112/J.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 002. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.S.RAMU 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. 33071/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.25.2.02. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20.8.03. P3. COPY OF THE SCHEME OF PAYMENT. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 38211/03. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.6.06. P6. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.22.6.06. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.8.8.06. P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.30.8.06. P9. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.15.9.06. P10. COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET OF THE INCOME OF THE FAMILY. P11. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.1.4.09 IN W.P.(C).No. 27510/06. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 33071 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the mother of one Surendran Chelot, who was a Probationary Officer in the respondent's bank, who died on 21.2.2002, while in service at the age of 33. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking lump sum ex gratia amount under Ext.P3 scheme evolved by the bank. Originally, the petitioner filed application for compassionate employment for her other son, viz. Chandranath. By Ext.P1, that claim was rejected stating that because Sri.Chandranath is over-aged, he is not eligible for compassionate employment. Subsequently, a nephew of the petitioner, Sri.Bijith, filed another application, which was rejected by Ext.P2 on the ground that the nephew is not eligible for such compassionate employment. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking lump sum ex gratia amount in accordance with Ext.P3 scheme framed by the bank. Ext.P3 was not in existence at the time when the petitioner's son died. Earlier the petitioner and her nephew approached this Court by fling W.P.(C).No.38211/2003, in which, this Court passed Ext.P4 judgment, which reads thus: 'The petitioners submit, they are the respective dependents of two deceased employees of the Canara Bank. Their bread winners died in harness. So,they seek appointment under the Bank, on compassionate ground. The claim raised by the petitioners has already w.p.c.33071/09 2 been rejected by the Bank. Hence, these writ petitions. 2. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Bank has introduced a Scheme on 14.2.2005, which is produced as Exhibit R2F in O.P.No. 9716/03, which provides for paying additional financial benefits in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioners in both the writ petitions pray, they may be given the benefit of the said scheme. 3. In the additional affidavit filed by the Bank, producing Exhibit R2F, it is submitted as follows: “Under the scheme all applications of compassionate appointment/grant of lump sum ex-gratia amount, if any, pending as on the effective date will be dealt with in accordance with the scheme (Exhibit R2F) approved by the Board. Therefore, now there is no provision for providing compassionate employment. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.” The claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has already been rejected and as stated earlier, those orders are under challenge. Therefore, it shall be treated as their applications for compassionate appointment are pending. Therefore, their claim for ex-gratia payment shall be considered, in accordance with law, by the Canara Bank, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is any objection in allowing the claim of the petitioners, they shall be put on notice regarding the objection and they shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, before final orders are passed. It is clarified that their applications shall not be rejected on the technical ground that they have not submitted the applications in time, their claim is barred by limitation, etc. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.' 2. Subsequent to framing of Ext.P3 scheme, the petitioner's claim for ex gratia amount in lieu of employment on compassionate grounds was considered and it was found that since the interest due on the net terminal benefits of the deceased together with other specified income of the family, would exceed 60% of the last drawn salary of the employee, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the scheme. w.p.c.33071/09 3 3. The petitioner challenges the same on the ground that the said condition would be applicable only when the terminal benefits are deposited in a bank and interest is earned from such deposit. I cannot countenance that contention. The scheme envisages not the actual interest but the interest, which may accrue on the net terminal benefits if the legal heir invests the same in a fixed deposit. The petitioner cannot say that she has not invested the same in fixed deposit and therefore, the said condition is not applicable. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge