Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 451 (UTT)

GANESH RAM v. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

2014-10-09

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.06.2003 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) by which the claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner (Late Sri Joga Ram) was working as a Messenger in State Bank of India, Branch Kanda, District Bageshwar (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”), died while in harness on 09.07.2001. The deceased left behind him following family members:- 1. Smt. Bhanuli Devi @ Bhawani Devi - Wife 2. Prakash Ram – Son 3. Sunder Ram – Son 4. Smt. Parwati Devi – Daughter 5. Smt. Kaushaliya Devi - Daughter 6. Ganesh Ram – Son (present petitioner) 3. The wife of the deceased – Smt. Bhanuli Devi moved a representation before the competent authority at Almora of the Bank for appointment of her elder son, namely, Prakash Ram on compassionate ground. The application, however, was rejected by the Bank on 30.06.2003 saying that the financial condition of the family cannot be termed as penurious, and as such appointment cannot be granted on compassionate ground. The petitioner did not challenge it at the relevant, but has challenged the same by way of filing the present writ petition in the year 2007. 4. The reasons why the respondents have declined appointment on compassionate ground is that such an appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a matter of course and secondly family members of the deceased are not in a penurious condition, as the family is getting pension of ‘4,500/- (approximately) and considering the source of income and liabilities of the family of the deceased compassionate appointment cannot be given. 5. This order was never challenged earlier, but has been challenged in the present petition. Meanwhile some new development have also taken place. This new development is that the Bank itself has initiated its Ex-Gratia Scheme on 04.08.2005 which is known as “SBI Scheme for Appointment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount” (in short ‘New Scheme’). According to New Scheme, no appointment on compassionate ground shall be given and only, ex-gratia compensation shall be given. Meanwhile some new development have also taken place. This new development is that the Bank itself has initiated its Ex-Gratia Scheme on 04.08.2005 which is known as “SBI Scheme for Appointment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount” (in short ‘New Scheme’). According to New Scheme, no appointment on compassionate ground shall be given and only, ex-gratia compensation shall be given. This New Scheme, according to the respondents, was launched and demands were made against the Bank for appointment on compassionate ground and at times the Bank found it very difficult to give such employment. 6. Yet since these matters kept pending for long, the family of the deceased employee, who at times need immediate financial support is deprived of the same. The New Scheme has been launched to take care of its employees where the Bank recognizes that any deserving case, that in a given case, family does need financial support. 7. This New Scheme is made applicable to all pending cases where appointment was sought on compassionate ground. It is again an admitted case that the Bank itself informed the wife of the deceased employee on 05.08.2006 to apply under the New Scheme. The Bank further admits that they have received the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which has been forwarded to the competent higher authority, but the reply which has been filed by respondents further states that he has only forwarded the application to the authority concerned and what has been the fate of the application dated 12.08.2006, he is not aware of it. The reply which he has given in paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit reads as under:- 27. That in reply to the contents of the para 10 of the writ petition, it is stated here that the petitioner given the application dated 12.08.2006 with respect to the amount payable under the ex-gratia lumpsum scheme. It is relevant to mention here that the deponent is only forwarding authority with respect to the application for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount to the higher authority, and that the calculation of amount of ex-gratia lumpsum amount has to be made by them.” 8. In view thereof, though this Court is of the opinion that after 13 years of the incident, since the petitioner did not challenge the rejection order dated 30.06.2003 at the relevant time, no interference can be made by this Court at this stage. In view thereof, though this Court is of the opinion that after 13 years of the incident, since the petitioner did not challenge the rejection order dated 30.06.2003 at the relevant time, no interference can be made by this Court at this stage. However, the New Scheme of ex-gratia is applicable in the case of the petitioner, as per own admission of the respondents/Bank, and the same has been forwarded to the higher authority. Let a decision be taken on it and the amount of compensation be given without any further delay. These directions are to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take a decision on it and they shall also consider this aspect that the petitioner hails from a remote village in Bageshwar and he may not be able to pursue the matter. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. The Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to send a copy of the writ petition along with counter affidavit and a copy of this order to both i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for onward compliance.