Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 271 (UTT)

State Bank of India v. Chandra Prakash

2019-04-03

N.S.DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhuvenesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Deepa Arya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner. 2. The respondent-Bank in WPSS No. 2145 of 2016 is in appeal before us aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition by his order dated 04.05.2018. The respondent-writ petitioners filed WPSS No. 2145 of 2016 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.07.2016; and a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint him on compassionate grounds since the first representation i.e. from 22.06.2006. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondent-writ petitioner’s father was working, at the Almora Branch of the State Bank of India, as a Head Messenger. He suffered a cardiac arrest and was admitted to hospital on 25.12.2000. While under treatment, he died on 15.01.2001. At the time of his death both the respondent-writ petitioner and his sister were minors, and had not attained majority. The respondent-writ petitioner claims that his sister (Radha Devi) was suffering from Hemiparesis which is a weakness on the entire left or right side of the body; and the Medical Superintendent/CMO, Almora had issued a certificate showing 50% physical impairment. The said Radha Devi had married Arun Kumar, she was deserted by her husband in the year 2012, and she is said to be living with the respondent-writ petitioner. The respondent-writ petitioner submitted a representation on 22.06.2006 stating that his father had died during the course of employment on 15.01.2001 and, since he attained majority on 09.07.2005, he may be considered for compassionate appointment. 4. The respondent-writ petitioner was informed by the appellant-Bank, by its letter dated 15.07.2016, that, ever since 04.08.2005, the Bank had stopped giving compassionate appointment and was, therefore, unable to accept his application. The respondent-writ petitioner again submitted a representation on 01.09.2016, and a similar reply was given by the appellant-Bank on 20.09.2016 informing the respondent-writ petitioner that the Bank had stopped giving compassionate appointment ever since 04.08.2005. 5. The respondent-writ petitioner again submitted a representation on 01.09.2016, and a similar reply was given by the appellant-Bank on 20.09.2016 informing the respondent-writ petitioner that the Bank had stopped giving compassionate appointment ever since 04.08.2005. 5. An ex-gratia Scheme was introduced by the State Bank of India on 04.08.2005 which records that the Executive Committee, of the Central Board of the appellant-Bank, had approved a scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds named as “SBI Scheme for payment of Ex-gratia Lumpsum Amount”. This decision of the Executive Committee was taken in its meeting held on 04.08.2005, and came into force from 04.08.2005. The Scheme was implemented for providing assistance, to the dependents of employees who died in harness, to sustain themselves. The Scheme itself stipulates that all applications under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, pending on that date, would be dealt with in accordance with the new Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount, provided all the terms and conditions of the Scheme were fulfilled. 6. On the respondent-writ petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the learned Single Judge has, in the order under appeal, observed that he had attained the age of majority in 2005-2006; though he had submitted an application on 23.05.2003, the said application could only be considered after attaining the age of majority; his case has been arbitrarily rejected; and his case was required to be considered in accordance with law, after attaining the age of majority, as per the old Policy taking into consideration the death of the respondent-writ petitioner’s father on 15.01.2001. The writ petition was allowed, and the order under challenge was quashed and set-aside; and the appellant herein was directed to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner, for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the old Scheme within ten weeks from that day. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 7. The writ petition was allowed, and the order under challenge was quashed and set-aside; and the appellant herein was directed to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner, for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the old Scheme within ten weeks from that day. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 7. Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, could submit that, while the Scheme for payment of ex-gratia was no doubt introduced w.e.f. 04.08.2005 and the respondent-writ petitioner’s father had died much earlier in the year 2001, the respondent-writ petitioner had attained eligibility, on his becoming a major, only in the year 2005-2006; it is only on 22.06.2006 that the respondent-writ petitioner had submitted a representation to the appellant seeking compassionate appointment; and the earlier application made on 23.05.2003 was submitted when the petitioner was a minor, and was not eligible to be appointed in the Bank on compassionate grounds. 8. In the case on hand, the respondent-writ petitioner had submitted an application after attaining majority, only after the Scheme for payment of ex-gratia was approved by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 04.08.2005, and the scheme itself stipulates that all pending applications should only be considered under the New Scheme. We find considerable force in the submission of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, that the Learned Single Judge ought to have examined whether the ex-gratia Scheme, introduced on 04.08.2005, would alone apply to the respondent-writ petitioner who was a minor and ineligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds when his father died in 2001, and had submitted a representation, after attaining majority, only on 22.06.2006 after the ex-gratia Scheme was introduced on 04.08.2005; whether cases, where an employee had died in harness prior thereto, would be governed by the pre-existing compassionate appointment Scheme though the application submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner on 22.05.2003 could not be considered as he was only a minor by then; whether the first representation submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, after he attained the age of majority, on 22.06.2006, long after the scheme for ex-gratia was introduced on 04.08.2005, would still enable him to seek compassionate appointment etc. 9. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has not examined any of these aspects. 9. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has not examined any of these aspects. Since the Scheme for payment of ex-gratia dated 04.08.2005 stipulates that all pending applications would only be considered in terms of the 2005 Scheme, and none of the aforesaid contentions have been examined by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, we consider it appropriate to set-aside the said order, and restore the writ petition to file. Since the writ petition relates to the year 2016, and the claim therein is regarding compassionate appointment, we request the learned Single Judge, before whom the matter is listed, to consider hearing the writ petition at an early date. 10. The Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.