—
Karnataka High Court
Niveditha N M vs Canara Bank on 21 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 10064 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NIVEDITHA N M
D/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA N R,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NO 830/40, BENAKA 14TH CROSS,
VIDYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577005
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAKASH SHETTY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CANARA BANK
6648, 112, JC RD, P B HALSURPETE,
NAGARATHPETE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001,
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. SENIOR MANGER
CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH,
HALADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE 577005
3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER
HRM SECTION, CANARA BANK HUBLI,
DHARWARD DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE-580001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
2
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN NON
CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER APPLICATION FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS BANK TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT AND ISSUE AN
APPOINTMENT ORDER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being married daughter of deceased
employee of first respondent-Bank is seeking a
direction against the respondent-Bank to give
appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. Petitioner’s father was working as a Clerk
in first respondent-Bank. Petitioner’s father on
account of illness died on 1.5.2015. Petitioner filed an
application seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds on 24.7.2015. The present petition is filed
alleging inaction on the part of the respondent-Bank in
3
not processing the application submitted by the
petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds.
3. Respondent-Bank has filed a memo and
has furnished the details of the terminal benefits paid
to the dependants. The memo also indicates that
widow of the deceased is getting family pension of
Rs.25,447/-.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has
placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench in W.A.No.1030/2021 disposed of on
23.2.2022. Referring to the principles laid down by
the Division Bench he would contend that the
respondent-Bank cannot discriminate on the ground
that petitioner is a married daughter. He has also
placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Punjab
4
and Haryana High Court in the case of State of
Punjab and another .vs. Amarjit Kaur [LPA-462-
2021(OM) disposed of on 25.1.2023].
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent-Bank referring to clause 3 of
Compassionate Appointment Scheme would point out
that employment on compassionate grounds can be
considered provided the son or daughter is found to
be wholly dependant on the deceased.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for respondent-
Bank.
7. The petitioner’s contention that merely
because she is a married daughter will not in itself
constitute a bar to seek employment on
compassionate grounds. This contention cannot be
acceded. The compassionate appointment scheme of
5
respondent-Bank has not contemplated any bar in the
context of marital status of a daughter. The eligibility
criteria is that the daughter should be wholly
dependant on the deceased employee. While
incidentally deciding the dependency, the
management and the Court are bound to examine the
marital status of daughter. Merely because the status
of a daughter is taken into consideration that in itself
would not constitute discrimination.
8. It is pertinent to draw upon the judgment
of the division bench of this Court in the case of
Mrs. Megha.J .vs. Life Insurance Corporation of
India (LIC) and another [W.A.No.891/2023(S-
RES),DD.27.9.2023], which elucidates the legal
interpretation of dependency and the rationale behind
precluding married daughters from eligibility for
compassionate appointment. Para 4 of the judgment
reads as under:
6
“4. Learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon
the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra
vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate AIR 2022 SC 5176 to
the effect that a married daughter residing in the
matrimonial home ordinarily cannot be treated as
a dependent on her father. Our scriptures injunct
“bharta rakshati yavvane…” literally meaning that
it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance
to his dependent wife. That is how our legislations
too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all
regardless of religions), Sections 24 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in
a broad sense of the term), Section 37 of the
Divorce Act, 1869 (applicable to Christians),
Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act,
1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of
religion and marital status), Sections 36 37 of
the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act,
2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have
been structured. No binding rule or ruling that
guarantees right of maintenance to the married
daughter residing with the husband qua the
father, is brought to our notice.”
The judgment emphasizes the duty of a husband to
provide maintenance to his wife and reaffirms the
principle that compassionate appointment is intended
to alleviate the immediate financial distress of the
7
deceased’s family, rather than confer entitlements or
privileges based on marital status.
9. The petitioner’s argument posits parity
between married/unmarried daughters and married
sons in the context of compassionate appointment
eligibility. However, this assertion overlooks the
fundamental distinction between inheritance rights
and compassionate appointment criteria. While the
principle of equality among daughters and sons may
find resonance in matters of inheritance or succession,
it does not translate directly to eligibility for
compassionate appointment. The principles governing
compassionate appointment eligibility pivot on
considerations of dependency, financial need, and the
humanitarian imperative to alleviate acute distress,
rather than notions of birthright or inheritance.
Therefore, the petitioner’s plea for parity between
married/unmarried daughters and married sons in the
8
context of compassionate appointment lacks legal
merit and is not supported by the prevailing legal
framework.
10. Furthermore, the eligibility for
compassionate appointment is contingent upon a
demonstration of severe hardship and an inability to
maintain oneself or one’s family in the absence of the
deceased. Importantly, the eligibility criteria for
compassionate appointment do not draw a distinction
between married/unmarried daughters and married
sons. Instead, the focus is on identifying individuals
who were dependent on the deceased for their day-to-
day expenses and who would consequently face
significant financial adversity in the absence of the
deceased’s support. Therefore, the object of
compassionate appointment is firmly rooted in
addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by
families following the demise of a family member,
9
without conferring appointment as a matter of right or
inheritance. This principle transcends marital
distinctions and is guided by the overarching objective
of extending support to individuals who are genuinely
in need due to their dependency on the deceased for
day-to-day expenses.
11. The essence of compassionate appointment
lies in addressing the immediate financial distress
experienced by the family in the aftermath of the
employee’s demise. The term “dependent” within the
context of compassionate appointment denotes family
members who were reliant on the deceased employee
for financial support. While compassionate
appointment aims to alleviate the economic burden on
such dependents, it does not extend to family
members who have since established independent
means of support or who no longer face financial
hardship.
10
12. The petitioner’s father having passed away
in 2015 does not automatically entitle the petitioner to
compassionate appointment in 2024. The eligibility for
such appointment hinges upon the continued financial
need of the family and the absence of alternative
means of sustenance for the petitioner. While the
representation was indeed submitted promptly, the
significant delay in taking action or reviewing the
request has resulted in its validity and relevance being
compromised. The primary objective of compassionate
appointment is to address the immediate financial
constraints faced by the family following the death of
the government servant or employee. However, the
prolonged delay in addressing the petitioner’s request
has allowed for a substantial amount of time to elapse
without providing the necessary assistance or relief to
the family.
11
13. During this extended period, the financial
circumstances and needs of the petitioner’s family
may have undergone significant changes. The initial
urgency and immediacy of the financial constraints
experienced by the family may no longer be as
pressing or relevant after such a prolonged period.
Therefore, if the petitioner’s family has been self-
sufficient and able to maintain themselves without
facing significant financial constraints since the demise
of the deceased employee, they may not be
considered eligible for compassionate appointment as
the primary objective of providing immediate financial
relief would not be applicable in the present case.
14. The petitioner does not possess eligibility
criteria. She has no legal right to seek appointment
on compassionate grounds. Respondent-Bank is not
under obligation to consider petitioner’s
representation.
12
15. Additionally, it is worth noting that the
dependents of the deceased have already obtained
terminal benefits. The counsel for the respondent-
bank has submitted the specifics of the terminal
benefits and pension received by the deceased’s wife.
It would be beneficial for this court to extract the
aforementioned memo, which reads as under:
“Terminal Benefit Amount Date
Staff Provident Fund Rs.11,27,941.46/- 16.06.2015
SPF arrears as per 10th BPS Rs.43,363.71/- 25.07.2015
Gratuity Rs. 9,09,303.74/- 16.06.2015
Arrears of gratuity as per Rs.43,774.03/- 26.08.2015
10th BPS
Staff Welfare Fund Deposit Rs.1,80,515/- 15.06.2015
PL Encashment Rs.4,63,436.46/- 25.07.2015
Death relief Amount Rs.1,50,000/- 23.07.2015
Death Relief fund Rs.35,000/- 22.07.2015
Total: Rs.29,53,334.40/-
Further, the amount of family pension being paid to
Yogamani: Rs.25,447/-”
These benefits, presumably provided by the
deceased’s employer, are typically intended to provide
a measure of financial security to the family following
13the employee’s demise. This monthly family pension
represents a significant source of financial support for
the deceased’s family. It is intended to provide
ongoing financial assistance to the family following the
loss of the deceased’s income. Given the existence of
this substantial monthly pension, coupled with the
receipt of terminal benefits, it can be reasonably
inferred that the financial needs of the deceased’s
family, are being adequately met.
16. It is pertinent to acknowledge that while
the Apex Court has consistently ruled that the receipt
of terminal benefits and pension cannot serve as
grounds to deny compassionate appointment, the
primary objective of compassionate appointment,
which is to address the immediate financial distress
faced by the family following the demise of a family
member, appears to have been met. The substantial
compensation received by the dependents ensures
14
their financial stability and ability to sustain
themselves without necessitating additional support
through compassionate appointment.
17. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
