APHC010535532011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16496/2011 Between: D.sundeep,& 2 Otrs and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Canara Bank Rep By Its Chief Manager Ir And Legal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents in not granting lump sum ex-gratia amount to the petitioners and in denying employment on compassionate grounds. The letter dated 30.07.2009, denying the grant of ex-gratia, is under challenge. The petitioners’ father was employed in the respondent bank and passed away while in service on 28.12.2007, leaving behind the petitioners and their mother. The application was filed seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, and the petitioners also sought grant of ex-gratia amount. 2. The respondents have denied granting the ex-gratia amount on the grounds that the monthly income of the family from all sources is more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, for the purpose of calculating the family income, only the salary of the unmarried children should be taken into consideration. The respondents have filed a counter and submitted the relevant scheme for the payment of the ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, dated 05.12.2007. 4. The reliance is placed on Clause 6(c), which mandates the respondents to consider the monthly income of unmarried children for the computation of income. It is submitted that none of the petitioners were employed as on the date of their father’s demise and had no income of their own. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled for grant of ex-gratia amount in view of the compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the compassionate 3 appointment was denied because the petitioners’ mother was working as a Government servant. The denial of the ex-gratia amount on the ground that the family income exceeds 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee cannot be justified, as the petitioners were not employed. It is further submitted that respondents in their additional counter calculated the interest on the terminal benefits at 8.75 per month, arriving at a monthly interest of Rs.12,435.06/-, which accrued on the terminal benefits, and also calculated the monthly salary of the petitioners’ mother. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank submits that the ex-gratia amount was deposited into the joint account of the petitioners’ mother and the petitioners. It is further submitted that the ex-gratia amount would be offered in lieu of compassionate appointment, which would be offered to the family of the deceased employee who has no other source of livelihood. In the present case, the petitioners’ mother is employed, and as such, the case of the deceased employee was not considered for the grant of compassionate appointment, as the wife of the deceased employee was a Government employee. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The petitioners' case was not considered for appointment on compassionate terms on account of the employment of the petitioners’ mother. The compassionate appointment is offered as a measure of immediate relief to help the family to tide over the financial difficulties on 4 account of demise of the breadwinner of the family. It is a beneficial scheme introduced by the respondents for the deserving families of the deceased employee. The case of the petitioners was considered by the respondents, and having concluded that the income of the petitioners’ family exceeds 60% of the last drawn pay of the deceased employee, the respondents, in accordance with their regulations and the scheme for the grant of lump sum ex-gratia, have issued the interim proceedings. This Court finds no infirmity in the issuance of the impugned proceedings. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 06.02.2025 PNS