- (1.)ONE Sri P. Satyanarayana, husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner, was employed as an Attender in State Bank of Hyderabad, the first respondent herein, in the year 1978. He died in an accident on 4. 5. 2005, while in service. The first petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent requesting that the benefit of compassionate appointment be extended to them. It was urged that on account of the death of satyanarayana, the family is without any earning member and is facing distress.
(2.)THE second respondent addressed a communication, dated 8. 12. 2005, to the petitioners stating that the petitioners cannot be said to be in distress, in view of the income of the first petitioner and the assets held by the family. The same is assailed in this writ petition.
(3.)SRI A. K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has taken into account the family pension and other benefits extended to the petitioners on account of the death of the deceased employee, and that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He contends that the death-cum-retirement benefits are transferable to the contribution of the employee himself and the same cannot be a factor for denying the benefit of compassionate appointment. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life insurance Corporation of India, 2005 scc (Lands) 590.