Smt. K. Lakshmi Vs Canara Bank (Karnataka High Court)
Married Daughters Also Eligible for Compassionate Appointment – Canara Bank’s Rejection Quashed- Karnataka HC
Background
The appellant, Smt. K. Lakshmi, daughter of a deceased Canara Bank employee, challenged the rejection of her application for compassionate appointment. Her application was rejected solely because she was a married daughter, the Bank holding that she was not dependent on her deceased father. The learned Single Judge had earlier dismissed her writ petition (WP No. 27347/2023), upholding the Bank’s rejection. The present appeal was filed challenging that order.
Appellant’s Arguments
- The rejection was discriminatory & contrary to law, as gender or marital status cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment.
- The issue was already settled by-
– Bhuvaneshwari V. Purani v. State of Karnataka (ILR 2021 KAR 5256), where married daughters were held equally eligible. The said ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 20166/2021 (order dated 17.12.2021).
– R. Jayamma v. Karnataka Electricity Board (ILR 1992 KAR 3416) also recognized similar parity.
Respondent Bank’s Stand
- The deceased employee’s married daughter was presumed dependent on her husband, not the deceased employee.
- It relied on several Supreme Court rulings including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, Indian Bank v. Promila (2020) 2 SCC 729, & Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 745) to argue that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but only an exception for immediate family hardship.
Court’s Findings
