Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 338 (PNJ)

Sunita Devi v. Branch Manager, SBI

2007-03-01

S.S.NIJJAR, S.S.SARON

body2007
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar. J.,(Oral):- The husband of the petitioner expired on 21.4.2003. The legal heirs of the deceased employee were paid the retirement benefits. Thereafter, litigation ensued between the mother of the deceased on one side and the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased, on the other with regard to the payment of retirement dues. The civil suit filed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner was dismissed on 3.12.2005 by the Civil Judge, Mohindergarh. It was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, the mother and the niece of the deceased filed another suit on 3.1.2006 claiming benefits of the deceased employee. That matter is still pending in Court. It may also be pertinent to notice that the Scheme for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds which was operative, in the Bank at the time of the death of the employee was subsequently withdrawn on 4.8.2005. The application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on two grounds, namely, that she had opted for ex-gratia lump-sum amount as per the revised Scheme and the Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds had been abolished in the Bank w.e.f. 4.8.2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner had to be considered under the Scheme which was prevalent at the time of the death of the employee on 21.4.2003 and her application could not have been rejected on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Bank to withdraw the scheme which was earlier applicable. In any event, the fact that the petitioner is a handicapped lady, should have been taken into account. Therefore, the impugned order attached to letter dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure P-7) is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been released the entire terminal benefits due to her on account of the death of her husband. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Bank as she had opted to receive ex-gratia lump-sum amount on the basis of the revised Scheme: However, her request for payment of the ex-gratia lump-sum has been deferred due to the pending litigation between the petitioner and the mother as well as the niece of the deceased employee. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Bank as she had opted to receive ex-gratia lump-sum amount on the basis of the revised Scheme: However, her request for payment of the ex-gratia lump-sum has been deferred due to the pending litigation between the petitioner and the mother as well as the niece of the deceased employee. In the impugned order, the respondents have also .noticed that the Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds has been abolished in the Bank w.e.f. 4.8.2005. In our opinion, the submissions made by the learned counsel are no longer res integra as the law has been well settled by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments. We may notice the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:­ “As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one. of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.” The aforesaid observations have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others vs. Jaspal Kaur, [2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 709 (SC) : 2007(1) Law Herald (SC) 648] (Appeal (Civil) No 409 of 2007 decided on 1.2.2007). In the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra), the High Court had allowed the writ petition. The Bank had been directed to give appointment to the petitioner. Against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the bank went in appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court with the following observations: ‘’’The law with regard to employment on compassionate grounds for dependents of a deceased employee was laid down by this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), where this Court observed that, “Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. This Court has further observed in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. (supra), that, “the particulars of their income have been noted in their application and it certainly could not be said on the basis thereof that the respondents were living hand to mouth. The Division Bench erred in diluting this criteria of penury to one of “not very well to do”. It was again observed in 2005 by this Court in the case of SBI Vs. Vikas Dubey, (Civil Appeal No.7003/05 dated 21.11.2005), also followed the decision in Kunti Tiwary (supra) case. Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made.” 4. Vikas Dubey, (Civil Appeal No.7003/05 dated 21.11.2005), also followed the decision in Kunti Tiwary (supra) case. Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made.” 4. The aforesaid judgments have been followed by this Division Bench in the case of Smt. Sudha Sharma vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Another (CWP No. 1712 of 2007) decided on 5.2.2007). From the above, it becomes apparent that appointment on compassionate grounds is not to be granted as a matter of right. It also cannot be granted to replace the deceased employee with one of the dependents. The aim and object of granting appointment on compassionate grounds is to help the family who may have been reduced to abject poverty by sudden demise of the sole bread-winner of the family. 5. On facts, it is not disputed that the Bank has paid the terminal dues payable to the petitioner, as per the norms of the Bank. However, the mother and the niece of the deceased have filed a suit in the civil court at Gurgaon. In that suit an application has been filed for interim stay. The matter is, therefore, clearly subjudice with regard to the claims which are subject matter of the said suit. Keeping in view the uncertainty of the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the ex-gratia payment, the disbursal of the amount to the petitioner has been deferred. In such circumstances, it would not be possible at this stage to hold that the petitioner would be entitled to receive the ex-gratia lump-sum payment in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. We are also unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner would be entitled to be considered on the basis of the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of the death of the employee on 21.4.2003. Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum has not been challenged by the petitioner. Rather the petitioner is seeking benefit under the revised Scheme by submitting an application for the grant of ex­ gratia lump-sum. We are also of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the ground that she is a handicapped person. Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum has not been challenged by the petitioner. Rather the petitioner is seeking benefit under the revised Scheme by submitting an application for the grant of ex­ gratia lump-sum. We are also of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the ground that she is a handicapped person. It is common knowledge that there are provisions providing for reservation for handicapped persons. The petitioner, therefore, would be at liberty to compete alongwith other candidates who are similarly situated. Time and again it has been reiterated by the Supreme Court that as a rule appointments in public services should be made after inviting applications and strictly on the basis of merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. The aforesaid dictum of law as laid down in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) would as much be applicable in the case of handicapped persons. A handicapped person making a claim or appointment on compassionate grounds is also liable to compete against similarly handicapped persons for open selection on merit in accordance with law. In the circumstances, no exception could be made in the case of the petitioner on the ground that she is a handicapped person. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. ————————————