JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.09.2007, by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia amount has been rejected and further prayer has been made not to give effect the order dated 17.09.2007 and make payment of ex-gratia amount. 2. The factual exposition, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Ramadhar Ram, while working as messenger in State Bank of India, Satbarwa Branch in the district of Palamau died in harness on 22.04.2001 after serving about 14 years of service. It has further been averred that as per the scheme floated by the respondent-Bank for payment of ex-gratia amount for the persons, who died in harness and whose remaining service tenure was more than ten years, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities for payment of lump sum ex-gratia amount in terms of said circular dated 04.08.2005. But, the respondents-Bank without considering the entire materials for payment of lump sum ex gratia amount rejected her claim vide order/communication dated 17.09.2007, which is impugned in this case. It has further been averred that the petitioner left with no other option, again submitted a representation by way of appeal for re-consideration of her claim for payment of ex-gratia amount but till date no action was taken thereon. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.09.2007, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after the death of her husband, the petitioner-widow lady approached the respondents-Bank, where the respondents-Bank handed over form for payment of lump sum ex-gratia amount in terms of circular dated 4.08.2005 and only thereafter, the petitioner filled up the form and submitted for payment of ex-gratia amount. It has further been submitted that since the formalities of payment of ex-gratia was initially done by the Bank, she was directed to submit the authorization paper, which she submitted, but, in spite of these facts, all of a sudden the respondents passed the three line laconic impugned order and straightway rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents cannot blow hot and cold at the same time as they are neither providing compassionate appointment nor they are making payment of ex-gratia amount. So far as reasons given in counter affidavit is concerned, it is no more res integra that reasons cannot supplemented by way of filing counter affidavit and no argument can be canvassed beyond the reasons assigned in impugned order. 5. As against this learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in order to give immediate monetary assistance to the bereaved family in lieu of compassionate appointment, the Executive Committee of the Central Board in its meeting held on 4th August, 2005 approved a Schedule for payment of Ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground named as “SBI Scheme of Payment of Ex-gratia Lump-sum Amount”. In the case at hand, the petitioner’s husband died on 22.04.2001 and the petitioner, being the widow of deceased-employee, submitted application for grant of Ex-gratia lump-sum amount in lieu of death of her husband on 25.07.2006 after lapse of six years. Admittedly, when the husband of the petitioner died scheme of appointment under Compassionate ground was in vogue and the petitioner never submitted any application before the new Scheme came into force and only in the year 2006 submitted application for grant of ex-gratia lump-sum amount, which was rightly rejected taking into consideration the fact when the husband of the petitioner died the new Scheme was not in force. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on close scrutiny of the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i).Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner died in harness while serving as Messenger, a class IV post, in respondent-Bank on 22.04.2001. After the death of the deceased-employee, the widow-petitioner submitted application for payment of lump-sum Ex-Gratia dated 25.07.2006 which was rejected vide communication dated 17th September, 2007. After the death of the deceased-employee, the widow-petitioner submitted application for payment of lump-sum Ex-Gratia dated 25.07.2006 which was rejected vide communication dated 17th September, 2007. The operative portion communication dated 17th September, 2007 is quoted herein below: “With reference to your application for payment of lump-sum Ex-Gratia dt 25/07/2006, we have to advise you that the competent Authority has declined your proposal for payment of Ex-Gratia lump-sum.” From plain reading of impugned order, it is manifestly clear that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of lump-sum Ex-Gratia, though in the counter affidavit it has been stated that since the husband of the petitioner died much before the new scheme- “SBI Scheme of Payment of Ex-gratia Lump-sum Amount” came into force, he is not entitled to get the benefit under this scheme and further since the petitioner had never applied for compassionate appointment, hence she is also not entitled to get appointment under compassionate scheme. Be that as it may be, admittedly no reason has been assigned in the impugned order and it is no res intergra that reasons cannot be supplemented by way of filing counter affidavit. (ii).Furthermore, as much emphasis has been laid down on “SBI Scheme of Payment of Ex-gratia Lump-sum Amount”, hence before proceeding further, it would be apposite to quote the relevant portion of scheme, which is reproduced herein below: “SBI SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF EX-GRATIA LUMP-SUM AMOUNT The Scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employees was introduced in the Bank with effect from the 1st January, 1979. Amendments. 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. We enclose, for your information and necessary action our scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount named “SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lump-sum Amount”. The Scheme will be applicable in following cases: (i) Employees dying in harness, (ii) Employees seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. Applications pending under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme as on the date will be dealt with in accordance with the new Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount provided they fulfil all the terms and conditions of this Scheme. In such cases, fresh application for payment of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment should be obtained on the format enclosed with our captioned Scheme. XXX XXX XXX” (iii). In such cases, fresh application for payment of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment should be obtained on the format enclosed with our captioned Scheme. XXX XXX XXX” (iii). From plain reading of the aforesaid scheme, it appears that it nowhere states that persons died before coming into force of this scheme shall not be covered by this Scheme rather it says that even applications pending under Compassionate Appointment on the date of this scheme i.e. 4th August, 2005 were directed to be dealt with in accordance the new Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount. From the representation dated 29.10.2007, which was filed by the petitioner—widow by way of appeal it appears that before submitting application for payment of ex-gratia amount, she has submitted application for compassionate appointment; as such otherwise also as per the new scheme she is entitled for the relief as sought for. Learned counsel for the respondents though submitted that no such representation was filed and further there is no provision of appeal also. But the argument canvassed on this count is not sustainable as it is expected that that dependent of the deceased-employee ought to be provide either compassionate appointment or monetary compensation. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and Scheme floated by the Bank, order dated 17.09.2007, which is a non-speaking one, is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent-Bank is directed to pass appropriate order, taking into considering the Scheme referred above and the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs, for payment of ex-gratia amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.