JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard the parties. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has come out with a prayer for quashing and setting the letter No. Pra.Ka/Ma.Sa/1236/15-16 dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure-5) issued by the General Manager (Administration), by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on account of ex-gratia due to death of his father in the year 2010. Further prayer has been made for release of payment to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakh on account ex-gratia as recommended and calculated by the respondent No. 3. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The father of the petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Choudhary, had joined the service of the respondent-Bank on 01.09.1990 as Office Attendant and his last place of posting was in Vananchal Gramin Bank, Godermana as Office Attendant. Father of the petitioner died due to cardiac arrest while he was in service on 26.02.2010 after completion of 19 years and 5 months of service. The remaining service of the father of the petitioner was 13 years and 9 months. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted an application for claim of ex-gratia as back as on 05.05.2010 along with duly signed blank Form with the respondent No. 4. The succession certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 15.12.2010 by the learned District Judge, Garhwa. On 08.07.2015, the respondent No. 3, after verification of the entire documents, prepared a note and recommended for ex-gratia payment to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakhs and the recommendation was sent to the Chairman of the Bank, respondent No. 1. In view of the recommendation, petitioner submitted an application on 12.10.2015 before the respondent No. 3 requesting him, inter alia, to release the amount of ex-gratia at the earliest. Surprisingly, the request of the petitioner was turned down vide letter dated 17.02.2016 issued by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that application for ex-gratia has been made by the petitioner after lapse of five years and as per rule of the respondent-Bank, the same is required to be filed within a period of six months from the date of death. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim as time barred though the application regarding ex-gratia payment was submitted as back as on 05.05.2010 along with duly signed blank form with the respondent No. 4, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that the application was also duly recommended by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 1 for payment of ex-gratia to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakh and in view of the recommendation, the Bank was under obligation to release the payment to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that action of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory in nature and as such, visits with civil consequences. Learned counsel also submits that the application dated 12.10.2015 was the reminder mentioning everything and also regarding the application dated 05.05.2010 and it cannot be treated as the first application made for release of ex-gratia payment. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure-1 and vehemently submits that the application was well within the period of six months from the date of death of his father and it cannot be said to be a belated claim. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the order was passed by the respondent-Bank in accordance with law and is fully justified and the period of limitation cannot be given a go-bye as the petitioner has applied after six months and as such, the claim has rightly been rejected. Learned counsel submits that even taking into consideration that the application was made by the petitioner on 05.10.2010, the detail particular including list of movable, immovable properties, if any, as also the monthly income of the family from all sources had to be furnished at the time of making of claim, which was absent in the application of the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said to be an application for payment of ex-gratia amount. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that even otherwise the public authority (competent authority for grant of ex-gratia) has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if the family of the deceased is unable to meet the crisis, the said amount should be granted. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that even otherwise the public authority (competent authority for grant of ex-gratia) has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if the family of the deceased is unable to meet the crisis, the said amount should be granted. One of the conditions for grant of exgratia is that the family shall be indigent or in penurious circumstances. Ex-gratia amount is not an entitlement and it is on the discretion of the bank and as such, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that payment of ex-gratia amount cannot be said to be the discretion of the Bank, rather, in view of the scheme floated by the Bank, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of ex-gratia payment. The reasons for rejection of the ex-gratia amount is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, as per the averments made in para-6 of the counter-affidavit, is not tenable. Relevant portion of para-6 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced herein below:- “6. ………………… Delay in making a claim inevitable leads to the presumption that the family has been able to survive the crisis and therefore, in such cases, the relief may not be granted.” 8. There is no chit of paper to show that the family has been able to survive the crisis. The grant of delay does not survive in view of the fact that application was made duly within time and well within the period of six months from the date of death of his father, which is evident from Annexure-1 as well as the recommendation of the respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1. It is also noteworthy that every aspect of the matter was considered by the respondent No. 3 before recommending for payment of aforesaid ex-gratia lump-sum amount to the petitioner. As such, the stand of the respondents are without any basis and not tenable. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and the legal proposition, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakhs. 10. As such, the stand of the respondents are without any basis and not tenable. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and the legal proposition, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakhs. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.