The Karnataka High Court has directed Kanara District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sirsi (Uttara Kannada), to reconsider the case of Veena, who had been seeking a job on compassionate grounds following her father’s death.
Veena’s father, Venkatesh Shet, was employed as an attender at the bank for 32 years before passing away in 2007 while still in service. After his death, Veena’s mother submitted a request for their daughter to be appointed under the bank’s compassionate appointment policy. However, despite multiple requests, the bank only hired Veena as an attender on a contract basis. Her contract ended on February 25, 2021, and was not renewed.
In November 2021, Veena submitted another application seeking a permanent position. When the bank failed to respond, she approached the High Court, which directed the bank to consider her request. Acting on this order, Veena submitted a fresh representation on April 27, 2022. However, the bank rejected her application, citing Rule 30 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, which states that only a deceased employee’s son or unmarried daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment. Since Veena was married in 2012, the bank argued that she did not qualify as a dependent.
Challenging this decision, Veena once again approached the High Court, arguing that her father had been a permanent employee and that she was entitled to the job despite her marital status.
After reviewing the case, Justice M. Nagaprasanna found the bank’s interpretation of Rule 30 to be arbitrary. The judge pointed out that in a previous case (Bhuvaneshwari vs. Puranik), the High Court had already struck down a similar rule, deeming it unfair. The court observed that the rule was outdated and needed to be amended in accordance with the law.
“The denial of appointment solely on the grounds of the petitioner being a married daughter is arbitrary and illegal. The bank must amend its rules to align with legal precedents,” Justice Nagaprasanna stated.
The court also criticized the bank for delaying action on Veena’s request for 14 years. The judge emphasized that the bank, having failed to address the family’s financial struggles for such a long time, could not now reject the request citing delays from Veena’s side.
Considering the financial hardships faced by Veena’s family, the High Court directed the bank to reconsider her application for compassionate appointment without any legal hindrance.
