IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 18240 of 2005(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R.SREERAJ, SRAVANYA, IMALI, OMALLOOR P.O PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ARJUN SREERAJ, MINOR, *REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER.R.SREERAJ, DO. DO. *(SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN, GRANDFATHER OF 2ND PETITIONER IS ALLOWED TO REPRESENT THE 2ND PETITIONER AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.7150/2009) BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 8TH FLOOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. 2. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK OF INDIA, 8TH FLOOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, I.R.DEPARTMENT, UNION BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. 4. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI FOR ALL.RRESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON 17/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 18240/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE EMPLOYMENT. P2. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.13.9.04. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.25.2.05 BY R3. P4. COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.8.4.05 BEFORE R2. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.18240 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Smt.Kavitha.K.S. died on 27.5.2004 while working as a Clerk in the Pathanamthitta Branch of the 1st respondent Union Bank of India leaving behind her, the 1st petitioner-husband and 2nd petitioner-minor son as her heirs. Alleging that the 1st petitioner was a junior lawyer and the 2nd petitioner-minor son were actually dependent on Kavitha at the time of her death, the petitioners applied to the respondents for lump sum financial relief under the dying-in-harness scheme of the 1st respondent bank. The same was rejected by Ext.P3, whereby it has been held that since the 1st petitioner was not a dependent on the deceased employee, the petitioners are not entitled to lump sum financial relief. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P3 in this writ petition. Both sought the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to provide financial reliefs to the petitioners as provided under Ext.P1 scheme. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal filed by the 1st petitioner without further delay.” 2. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the 1st petitioner died and, therefore, the grandfather of the 2nd petitioner has come on record as the guardian of the minor for prosecuting the writ 2 petition, which was allowed by order in I.A.No.7150/2009. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that both the petitioners were actually dependents on the deceased employee. The contention is that the 1st petitioner was a junior lawyer in a mofussil bar and was not earning much income from the profession and was therefore, dependent on the deceased employee. It is further submitted that in any event, nobody can dispute the fact that the 2nd petitioner minor son was a dependent on the deceased employee. In such circumstances, the petitioners could not have been denied the benefit of lump sum financial relief, is the contention raised. 4. The counsel for the petitioners now submits that even otherwise now that the 1st petitioner is no more, the 2nd petitioner cannot be denied the benefit in so far as the 2nd petitioner was a dependent on the deceased employee. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. I am at a loss to understand how the respondents came to the conclusion that the 1st petitioner was not a dependent on the deceased employee. No material whatsoever is referred to in the said order. In the counter affidavit also no specific material is relied upon in support of that contention. It cannot be totally improbable that a junior lawyer is dependent on his earning wife, especially when he is practising in a mofussil court. In any event, it cannot be disputed that 3 the minor son of the deceased employee was dependent on the employee. If that be so, at least the minor son of the deceased employee is entitled to lump sum financial relief. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed and the respondents are directed to pay to the 2nd petitioner lump sum financial relief payable to him as dependent of the deceased Kavitha, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== I.A.No.7150/09 in W.P.(C).No.18240/05 ================== Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This application is filed by the grand father of the 2nd petitioner seeking permission to represent the 2nd petitioner as guardian since the 1st petitioner is no more and the 2nd petitioner is minor. Heard. Allowed. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE 5 18240 I.A.No.7150