R.BIJU,S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR versus GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEASE BANK

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

R.BIJU,S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR v. GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEASE BANK - WP(C) No. 24431 of 2004(H) [2007] RD-KL 13028 (13 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24431 of 2004(H)

1. R.BIJU,S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

2. THE CHIEF OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,

3. THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEA BANK,

Vs

1. GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEASE BANK.
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :13/07/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

W.P(C).No.24431 OF 2004

Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007

JUDGMENT

The petitioner's father died on 1.9.2001 while in the service of the Indian Overseas Bank. Petitioner's sister Reshmi Nair applied for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. That led to a writ petition being filed before this Court as O.P.No.1287/03. In fact, Reshmi Nair had made the application for compassionate appointment on the strength of the consent letter given by the petitioner that she may be appointed on compassionate grounds on account of the demise of their father. But the fact remains that O.P.No.1287/03 was finally withdrawn and later on, the petitioner filed the application for compassionate appointment on 5.9.2003, though his mother. But, by the time, the period of one year prescribed by clause 3 (a) of Ext.R1(a) scheme had expired. Since the entitlement is only for being considered in accordance with a scheme framed by the Bank, such entitlement to be considered is only in terms of the scheme and not otherwise. If the scheme  WPC.24431/04 Page numbers provides a cut off date, one would not have legal entitlement to apply after the prescribed cut off date. This issue is fairly covered by the decisions of the Apex Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Shri.Dinesh Kumar [JT 1996 (5) S.C. 319] and in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Smt.A.Radhika Thirumalai [JT 1996 (9) S.C. 197]. Under such circumstances, I find no ground to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.