Smt. Sudha Singh vs Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1635 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26575 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Sudha Singh
 
Respondent :- Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank Thru Its Chairman And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Devendra Dhama,Ratnesh Kumar Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Kartikey Saran
 

 
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikey Saran, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent-Bank.

Undisputed facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under :

Husband of the petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank, died in a road accident on 26.10.2009 in harness leaving behind the petitioner and one minor daughter. Petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 3.7.2010 which was rejected on 9.7.2010 on the ground that under the scheme enforced in Bank for compassionate appointment, there is a provision for making ex-gratia payment and since a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs has already been paid as ex-gratia, she was not liable to be given compassionate appointment.

Respondent-Bank has framed a scheme known as 'Revised Model Scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds & appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds'. The said scheme has been framed and enforced by the Bank in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, J. T. 1994 (3) SC - 525  and was enforced on 29.12.2008 retrospectively with effect from 31.7.2004 and all cases of death occurring after the said date are to be dealt with according to the provisions of the scheme. It is not in dispute that on the date of death of husband of petitioner the scheme was in force. Scheme specifies the case where ex-gratia payment is to be made and where compassionate appointment is to be given.

Clause 4 (A) of the scheme providing for grant of ex-gratia reads as under :

"4 (A). The Scheme for grant of ex-gratia will be applicable in the following cases of employees :

(i) Employee dying in harness (other than due to injury sustained while performing official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity).

(ii) Employee dying due to injury sustained while performing official duty within or outside office premises (other than due to violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and excluding travel from residence to place of work and back).

(iii) Employee seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years."

Similarly Clause 4 (B) provides for compassionate appointment. The said clause reads as under :

"4 (B). The Scheme of Compassionate Appointment will be applicable in the following cases:

(a) Employee dying while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity.

(b) Employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children."

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere grant of ex-gratia amount does not dis-entitle the petitioner from claiming compassionate appointment as the scheme provides for the same. It has further been submitted that petitioner never made any application for ex-gratia and the payment has been made without her consent as such the same would not dis-entitle her from claiming compassionate appointment.

In reply, it has been submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be made in accordance with the scheme enforced by the bank and the case of the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of the scheme providing for compassionate appointment, rather she was entitled for payment of ex-gratia amount under the said scheme which has been paid to her.

I have considered the rival submission and perused the record.

Petitioner does not dispute that a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs has been received by her towards ex-gratia amount.

It is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter or right nor the public office is heritable. Equally well settled is the proposition that the Court cannot order appointment on compassionate ground dehors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions and mere financial hardship faced by the family does not entitle to claim compassionate appointment dehors the statutory provisions.

In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. M/s Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar and another, JT 1994 (2) SC-183, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under ;

"13. The Court should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, it should never be done. In the very case, itself, there are Regulations and Instructions which we have extracted above. The Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of these statutory provisions. Clause 2 of sub-clause (iii) of Instructions makes it clear that relaxation could be given only when none of the members of the family is gainfully employed. Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.1.1987 interdicts such an appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellate Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered."

In paragraph 15, it has further been observed that it is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside.

In Union Bank of India and others Vs. M. T. Latheesh, 2006 (7) SCC - 350, it has been observed as under :

"It is also settled law that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Learned single Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the appointing and selecting authorities. The Bank had considered the application of the respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment. After than even though the Bank found the respondent ineligible for appointment to its service, the High Court has found him eligible and has ordered his appointment. This is against the law laid down by this Court. It is settled law that the principles regarding compassionate appointment that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family.. The respondent is not entitled to claim relief under the new Scheme because the financial status of the family is much above the criterion fixed in the new scheme."

In the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh, JT 2007 (3) SC 398, while considering the scheme of compassionate appointment, it has been held as under :

"There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion, the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be."

Again in the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar 2010 (11) SCC 611, it has been held that the claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right, whatsoever, outside such scheme.

By the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is now well settled that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment rather it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible to participate in the selection process. The dependents of an employee who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis being faced on account of death of the bread-earner of the family.

In the case in hand, the husband of the petitioner died in road accident. The case of the petitioner clearly falls within clause 4 (A) of the Scheme and thus, she was only entitled for ex-gratia amount and not compassionate appointment. As per the provisions of the scheme, ex-gratia amount has already been paid to her.

Since the case of the petitioner was not covered under the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment, rather fall under the class of cases providing for ex-gratia payment, the first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is totally misconceived.

In so far as second argument is concerned that petitioner never made any application for grant of ex-gratia amount and rather it was paid without her consent is also bereft of any merit. A sum of Rs.8.00 lacs towards ex-gratia amount was willingly accepted by the petitioner and it was only after accepting the said amount, she started making claim for compassionate appointment.

Claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment being de hors the scheme framed by the Bank, she cannot be held to be entitled for the same.

In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.

Order Date :- 12.5.2011

Dcs