Sofina M. and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.

Sofina M. and anr. vs State Bank of India and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Dec 27, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/444658

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/444658
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
Decided On: Dec 27, 2005
Case Number: WP No. 25655 of 2005
Subject: Service
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sofina M. and anr.

Advocate K. Venkata Siva Prasad, Adv.

Respondent

State Bank of India and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: 2006(2)ALD455; [2006(109)FLR483]

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........a semblance of succession of offices, has stepped in.5. a phenomenon, which used to be viewed with utmost sympathy, naturally called for a practical approach. with the dawning and increase of frustration in the unemployed, a closer scrutiny of cases for appointment on compassionate grounds became imperative. it is in this context that the supreme court in its decision in shri umesh kumar nagpal v. state of haryana : [1994]3scr893 , took the view that such appointments cannot be claimed or made, as a matter of course, and that it is only in case where the family is found to be in penury, without any other income, that the benefit under the scheme can be extended. in the recent past, the supreme court held that the amount of pension and other benefits received by the family, is a factor to be taken into account. this court followed the same in number of cases, and upheld the stand taken by the employers in rejecting the claims for compassionate appointment, where the families were found not to be in penurious condition.6. in the instant case, even according to the petitioners, they are receiving family pension, and that the other amounts, which became payable on the death of late anthony, were kept in a deposit, with the object of paying the instalments from out of the accrued interest. this court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.7. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the son of late Anthony. He had initially served the Armed Forces, and thereafter, was employed as Armed Guard, in the State Bank of India. He died on 24.1.2002, while in service. The first petitioner made an application to the respondents on 30.7.2002, with a request to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondents addressed a letter, dated 21.8.2004, stating that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in penurious condition, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the subject, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner. The letter dated 21.8.2004 is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The scheme of providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of an employee, who died while in service, was framed and implemented in Government and Semi-Government Organisations. The object of the scheme was to ensure that the sudden death of an employee does not leave his family in distress, and it is rescued from penury. Over the years, the scheme has assumed such a proportion that the death of every employee while in service has resulted in submission of claim for compassionate appointment, irrespective of the condition of the family. Instances are not lacking, when the employees while in service have retired on medical grounds, with the sole object of paving the way for compassionate appointment of their dependants. If at all any thing, these developments indicate the sense of social insecurity, particularly in the light of unemployment of a very high magnitude.

4. Whatever be the justification for such claims, the appointment on compassionate grounds remained the only source of recruitment in the various Organisations, in the context of rationalization and reduction of man power. Slowly, a semblance of succession of offices, has stepped in.

5. A phenomenon, which used to be viewed with utmost sympathy, naturally called for a practical approach. With the dawning and increase of frustration in the unemployed, a closer scrutiny of cases for appointment on compassionate grounds became imperative. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in its decision in Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana : [1994]3SCR893 , took the view that such appointments cannot be claimed or made, as a matter of course, and that it is only in case where the family is found to be in penury, without any other income, that the benefit under the scheme can be extended. In the recent past, the Supreme Court held that the amount of pension and other benefits received by the family, is a factor to be taken into account. This Court followed the same in number of cases, and upheld the stand taken by the employers in rejecting the claims for compassionate appointment, where the families were found not to be in penurious condition.

6. In the instant case, even according to the petitioners, they are receiving family pension, and that the other amounts, which became payable on the death of late Anthony, were kept in a deposit, with the object of paying the instalments from out of the accrued interest. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.

7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Sofina M. and anr. vs State Bank of India and anr. Same Subject Service Same Judge L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Service