The Madras High Court has directed a nationalised bank to provide a suitable employment to the son of a manager of the bank who was shot dead in 2001, five days prior to the date of his voluntary retirement.
“The officials of the bank under one false pretext or the other turned a deaf ear to the plea of the deceased employee's family for compassionate appointment on the pointless ground that after payment of ex-gratia to which the petitioners are legally entitled, there is nothing for the bank even to consider the request for compassionate appointment. Such an imprudent and hard-hearted approach on the part of the bank, which is an instrumentality of the State, is clearly opposed to Articles 38, 39 and 41 of the Constitution,” Justice T.Raja observed while allowing a writ petition. These provisions compelled the bank to secure the petitioners, their right to adequate means of livelihood.
The petitioners, V.Mullai Vasuki, wife of the victim K.Veerarajan and son V.Gokulakrishnan, moved the High Court seeking to declare the denial of compassionate appointment to Mr.Gokulakrishnan as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Constitution. Veerarajan was serving as Manager of Sardhana branch of Syndicate Bank in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. On June 25, 2001 after closing the bank, he was returning home from work carrying a bag containing the bank's important documents and keys, including the safe room keys. Thinking that he was carrying the bank's money, some dacoits tried to snatch the bag from him. When he refused to part with it, he was shot. He was declared dead at a nursing home. He left behind his wife and three college going children. Mr.Veerarajan had applied for voluntary retirement in December 2000. The bank accepting his request for voluntary retirement on April 2, 2001, passed an order that he would be relieved from service from June 30, 2001.
Petitioners' counsel S.Vaidyanathan said the bank being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution could not take any negative stand on hyper-technical ground to deny compassionate appointment. Denial of such appointment was illegal.
Mr.Justice Raja said 4 (B) of the revised model scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased employees on compassionate grounds should be applied by giving the benefit of appointment to Mr.Gokulakrishnan.
There was no merit whatsoever in the bank's claim that once the ex-gratia was settled, there was no obligation on its part to consider the plea of compassionate appointment. The bank should act as a role-model employer.
The judge said the victim's son's request for compassionate appointment deserved to be considered as a special case in view of the peculiar circumstances under which Mr.Veerarajan was murdered.
