M/S Gayatri v. The Chairman And Managing Director Andhra Bank

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.6317 of 2003 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in rejecting the claim of 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment, as arbitrary and illegal and sought a consequential direction to consider the case of 2nd petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2.

Heard Smt.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for petitioners and Dr.K.Lakshminarsimha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

3.

It has been contended by the 1st petitioner that her husband was an employee of Andhra Bank and while he was discharging his duties, he had expired on 25.02.2002. Thereafter, she had submitted a representation to the respondents to consider the case of 2nd petitioner, who is none other than the son of 1st petitioner, for appointment on compassionate ground. But the respondents, without considering the case of 2nd petitioner and without assigning any reasons, have rejected the case of petitioners vide proceedings dated 13.11.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted another representation on 16.12.2002, but the respondents have again, without assigning any reasons, have rejected the case of

AKS, J W.P.No.6317 of 2003 petitioners vide proceedings dated 15.01.2003. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4.

The petitioners contend that as per the policy of the respondent-Bank, there is a scheme to provide employment under compassionate ground, but the respondents, without assigning any reasons, have mechanically rejected the case of the petitioners. 5.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents contend that the petitioners are not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and hence, their case was rightly rejected by the Bank.

6.

This Court, having considered the rival contentions of the parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to re-consider the case of 2nd petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground without being influenced by their earlier rejection orders dated 13.11.2002 and 15.01.2003, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 14th November, 2018 ajr