Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2834 (RAJ)

Bidami Devi v. Bank Of Baroda

2022-11-29

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 05.07.2014, whereby the petitioner has been denied benefits of ex-gratia financial relief on account of death of petitioner's husband. 2. The facts pleaded in the writ petition in nutshell are that the husband of the petitioner was working in the respondent-Bank after his appointment on 04.04.1983 as "Daftari" and he died on 28.12.2013. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents had issued a circular dated 12.11.2007, introducing a scheme for payment of exgratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground or appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that she had submitted an application dated 09.04.2014 for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, however, by the impugned communication dated 05.04.2014, it was informed to the petitioner that her claim was rejected, as the ex-gratia amount was not to be given to her, as the family of the deceased was having sufficient sources of income because estimated monthly income was more than 60% of the salary (last drawn salary) of deceased-husband of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that she had submitted an application to the Regional Manager of the Bank and Dy. General Manager, requesting them that there was no agricultural income of the petitioner and as such, the assessment was not correctly made by the Authorities while calculating the income of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has further pleaded that the communication dated 27.08.2014 was received from Dy. General Manager, informing that the agricultural income of the petitioner was not taken into consideration but the terminal benefits of Rs.12,67,963/- were taken into account and the total liabilities of Rs.4,48,038/- were deducted and as such, net income of the petitioner came to Rs.8,19,925/-. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that she again submitted an application before the Dy. General Manager that the expected income of the petitioner was wrongly assessed as Rs.6,662/- and according to the Bank statement, from 02.11.2013 to 30.04.2014, the interest of five months was Rs.6,509/- and as such, income from the interest was about Rs.1,302/- per month. 8. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that she again submitted an application before the Dy. General Manager that the expected income of the petitioner was wrongly assessed as Rs.6,662/- and according to the Bank statement, from 02.11.2013 to 30.04.2014, the interest of five months was Rs.6,509/- and as such, income from the interest was about Rs.1,302/- per month. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that she was again in receipt of a communication dated 16.12.2014, whereby she was informed that application of the petitioner was processed in terms of provisions of the scheme and it was found that the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. 9. The petitioner has further pleaded that there were other liabilities, including Education Loan, taken by son of the petitioner, namely, Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Gurjar and Kisan Credit Card loan was also taken by the petitioner herself and as such, along with the petition, statement of accounts has been filed as Annexures-10 & 11. The petitioner has pleaded that due amount of Rs.2,37,893/- in the Education Loan and Rs.2,53,623/- in the Kisan Credit Card loan was required to be deducted and as such, the Authorities did not take into account the expected income of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that she again requested the Authorities to consider her case but no response was received and as such, after serving a notice for demand of justice, the instant petition has been filed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Satyapal Poshwal submitted that the scheme, introduced by the respondent-Bank, has provided the basis of computation of monthly family income and in the category of liabilities, the loans taken from the Bank or other financial institutions with the prior approval of the Bank are required to be considered and as such, the respondents, while making calculation of monthly income, have not deducted the aforesaid two loans and accordingly, income of the petitioner has not been properly assessed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the communication sent to the petitioner by the respondents while considering her case and giving computation of income has also wrongly included income from the interest on post retiral terminal benefits given to the petitioner as Rs.6,662/- per month and net expected income of the petitioner has been calculated as Rs.16,896/- and 60% of the same has been calculated as Rs.16056/-. 13. 13. Learned counsel submitted that if these three components are calculated properly, then income of the petitioner would come around Rs.12,209/- and same would be less than 60% of the total income and as such, the petitioner would be entitled for ex-gratia payment as per the scheme. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that the objections raised by the respondents with regard to not taking into account the loan, which was taken by son of the petitioner and by the petitioner herself, is absolutely contrary to the parameters which have laid down by the Bank, itself. 15. Learned counsel Mr.Prashant Chaturvedi, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Authorities have rightly taken into account the relevant factors for computation of monthly family income. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the liabilities of an employee are required to be considered and if any loan was taken by such employee from the Bank then such loan can only be considered as a liability and if the loan was taken by son of the deceased-employee or by the petitioner, who is a widow of ex-employee of the Bank, the same loan cannot be deducted from the head of the liabilities. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there was no prior approval of the Bank also and as such, the family members cannot take benefits of deduction of loan amount in the liabilities. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the scheme, which has been framed by the respondent Bank is a discretionary scheme and if the incumbent fulfills the requisite criteria then only such person can be granted benefit and in the present case, the petitioner has not been found suitable after proper calculation, as per the different parameters, provided under the scheme. 19. Learned counsel further submitted that grievance of the petitioner with regard to calculating agricultural income has not been taken into consideration while calculating the monthly income and as such, the grievance raised by the petitioner in respect of agricultural income is wholly unfounded. 20. 19. Learned counsel further submitted that grievance of the petitioner with regard to calculating agricultural income has not been taken into consideration while calculating the monthly income and as such, the grievance raised by the petitioner in respect of agricultural income is wholly unfounded. 20. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue with regard to adding the income in the head of interest has rightly been taken into account by the Authorities, as the terminal benefits, which are granted to an employee are used by the family members by keeping them in Fixed Deposit and as per prevalent interest rate, if terminal benefits carried interest at the relevant time, at the rate of 9.75%, the Authorities accordingly, has given expected income of Rs.6,662/- per month from interest component. 21. Learned counsel further submitted that since the net expected income of the petitioner is more than 60% and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for ex-gratia scheme. 22. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 23. This Court deems it proper to quote the relevant Clause of calculation of monthly income of an employee in the scheme and the same is quoted as hereunder:- "Calculation of monthly income 1) Terminal Benefits i. Provident Fund ii. Gratuity iii. Leave Encashment iv. Any other amount paid under Bank's Scheme (S) Sub-total (A) 2. Liabilities: i. Loans Taken form bank and/or other financial ii. Institutions with the prior approval of the bank iii. Sub-total (B) Net corpus of terminal benefits (C=A-B) 3. Investments: i. Deposits ii. NSCs iii. PPF iv. LIC Policies v. Others Sub-Total (D) 4) Details of movable property, if any, held and Monthly income derived there from. 5) Details of immovable property, if any, held and monthly income there from. 6) Monthly income of the family from all sources. i. Monthly interest at the bank's maximum term deposit rate on the net corpus of terminal benefits (C) ii. Monthly income from investments. iii. Monthly income from movable and immovable property iv. Monthly income of dependent family members v. Any other monthly income" 24. The first objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner of deducting the loans from the liabilities is in respect of Kisan Credit Card Loan and Education Loan taken by the petitioner and her son, respectively. 25. iii. Monthly income from movable and immovable property iv. Monthly income of dependent family members v. Any other monthly income" 24. The first objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner of deducting the loans from the liabilities is in respect of Kisan Credit Card Loan and Education Loan taken by the petitioner and her son, respectively. 25. This Court finds that the loans which are taken by family members are obviously not included in the loans, which are taken by an employee and in the present case, if the son of the deceased-employee has taken loan in his own name as a student and he was major at the time of taking loan, the amount of loan, which was granted to the son of the deceased, cannot be treated as a loan given to the employee himself. 26. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the loan which was taken by the petitioner as Kisan Credit Card Loan was also in her own name and as such, as per guidelines which have been issued in the scheme, the loan taken by the petitioner as Kisan Credit Card Loan, will also not be required for the purpose of calculating the liabilities of the deceased employee for the purpose of granting ex-gratia payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, at this juncture, submitted that an additional document has been filed to support his contentions that the Education Loan was sanctioned by the Competent Authorities and since husband of the petitioner was working in the Bank and as such, only on account of granting personal guarantee in favour of son, it should be presumed that the loan had been granted to the deceased- employee and not to the student i.e. son of the petitioner, this Court is afraid to accept such submission. The recommendations made in favour of Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Gurjar (the son of the petitioner), clearly shows that he was borrower and only security was given by his father and further the repayment schedule also showed that 48 equated monthly installments from six months after getting job or twelve months after completion of course, whichever was earlier, required to be repaid, hence, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is without substance that the loan amount in favour of son of the petitioner was to be treated as a liability. This Court finds that the calculation, which has been made by the respondents under the head of interest, is not properly considered by them and they have taken into account the monthly loan of Rs.6,662/- as component. This Court finds that the statement of accounts which has been filed by the petitioner shows that Rs.6,509/- has been credited on 03.05.2014 and the said amount is interest from 02.11.2013 to 30.04.2014. This Court finds that the respondents, while calculating the interest part have taken into account the rate of interest @ 9.75 per annum and they have calculated Rs.6,662/- as expected income per month. This Court finds that in absence of any investment being made by the petitioner to earn the monthly interest of Rs.6,662/- per month, the respondents could not have taken into account such income of the petitioner against the interest head. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the lump sum amount, which is granted to an employee on his retirement or on his death and the same amount if invested in any Fixed Deposit, carry certain rate of interest and accordingly the Authorities are justified in taking into account the said amount for the purpose of calculating interest, cannot be accepted by this Court. The respondents in absence of any proof of any investment being made by the dependents of the deceased-employee, could not have drawn a presumption that the money if invested would have earned Rs.6,662/- per month as interest. This Court accordingly finds that the respondents ought to have computed the income of the petitioner against the income part in the proper manner and considering the fact that assumption has been drawn by the respondents, this Court finds that the respondents have not acted properly in calculating the income of the petitioner. This Court finds substance in submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had also paid lump sum amount in loan account and as such the entire money received from Bank was never kept in FDR or invested somewhere earning interest from such amount. This Court accordingly finds that the impugned order dated 05.07.2014 has not been issued by keeping in mind the scheme for ex-gratia financial aid to the dependents of deceased-employee and accordingly this Court sets-aside the order dated 05.07.2014. This Court accordingly finds that the impugned order dated 05.07.2014 has not been issued by keeping in mind the scheme for ex-gratia financial aid to the dependents of deceased-employee and accordingly this Court sets-aside the order dated 05.07.2014. This Court accordingly directs the respondents to consider the interest part of the petitioner in proper manner and if the net expected income of the petitioner does not exceed 60% of the total income, as per the scheme, the petitioner may be considered for granting benefit accordingly. This Court rejects the claim of the petitioner in respect of deducting the loan amount taken by the petitioner and her son for the purpose of calculating the liability under the head of loan taken. The respondents would carry out the necessary exercise within a period of five weeks after receipt copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.