Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Chaitanya Godavari Grameena ... vs Smt.K.Ravi Kumari, on 8 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT APPEAL NO.1436 of 2014
(Through physical mode)
The Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank,
Head Office, Raghu Mansion,
4/1 Brodipet, Guntur,
Rep. by its Chairman.
... Appellant
Versus
K. Ravi Kumari, W/o Late K. Sudhakar,
R/o S Rambabu,
D.No.9-5-52/2, Peethalavanipalem,
Peda Waltair Post,
Visakhapatnam
... Respondent
Counsel for the appellant : Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha,
learned standing counsel
Counsel for respondent : M. Pitchaiah,
learned counsel.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 08.03.2022
(per Mr. Justice Subba Reddy Satti)
This intra-Court appeal is presented against the order, dated
21.08.2013 in W.P.No.1588 of 2009. Writ Petition was filed seeking to
issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellant/respondent
in directing to submit succession certificate and to get a direction from the
appropriate authority to get the benefit of compassionate appointment in
its letter dated 16.07.2007 and immediately directing the respondent/writ
petitioner to apply for payment of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate
appointment by its letter dated 27.07.2007 as illegal and arbitrary. The
learned Single Judge set aside the order, dated 27.07.2007 passed by
Chairman of appellant bank and further directed the appellant bank to
consider the request of the writ petitioner to appoint her on
compassionate grounds as Sweeper-cum-Messenger.
2. Brief facts germane to consider the issue are narrated as follows:
The husband of the writ petitioner, K. Sudhakar, former Branch Manager
of Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'bank')
died in harness on 29.05.2006 leaving behind the writ petitioner (wife),
and two children through his first wife i.e. one daughter and one son.
After the death of the first wife, said Sudhakar married writ petitioner and
they have no issues out of their wedlock. The writ petitioner passed eight
class and in view of the death of her husband, she made an application on
01.06.2007 to the authorities seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds as Sweeper-cum-Messenger. The bank authorities addressed a
letter, dated 16.07.2007 directing the writ petitioner to submit succession
certificate and to get direction from the appropriate authority to get
benefit from the bank.
By letter No.099/3/G/28, dated 27.07.2007, the Chairman of the
bank informed the writ petitioner that her request for appointment as
Sweeper-cum-Messenger in the bank on compassionate grounds could not
be considered in the light of the new scheme i.e. payment of ex-gratia in
lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the same,
the writ petitioner filed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition by order, dated 21.08.2013.
3. The above intra-Court appeal was filed with a delay of 269 days
and the same was condoned by Division Bench of composite High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by order, dated 19.11.2014. The Division
Bench by order, dated 17.07.2014 passed in W.A.M.P.No.2279 of 2014
granted interim suspension.
4. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned standing counsel for
the appellant-bank and Mr. M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner.
5. Learned standing counsel for the bank would contend that
though the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner died on 29.05.2006,
in view of the change in the scheme, the request made by the
respondent/writ petitioner for her appointment on compassionate grounds
was negatived. He further contended that the respondent/writ petitioner
was directed to submit the required information to the head office through
Kalipatnam branch for payment of ex-gratia, as per the eligibility in the
light of new scheme. Learned standing counsel further contended that
'the revised model scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of
appointment on compassionate grounds and appointment of dependents
of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds'' (herein after
referred to as 'new scheme') came into force retrospectively w.e.f
31.07.2004 and applications pending as on 31.07.2004 would be
considered in accordance with revised scheme. Thus, it was contended
that the order passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ
petitioner would contend that on the date of death of the husband of the
respondent/writ petitioner, the earlier scheme for appointment of the
dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in regional
rural banks, came into operation from 01.10.1982 is subsisting. As per the
scheme, writ petitioner's representation for considering her request for
appointment in the post of Sweeper-cum-Messenger on compassionate
grounds could have been considered positively. Thus, the counsel
requested the Court to dismiss the writ appeal.
7. Both the learned counsel relied upon Secretary to Govt.
Department of Education (Primary) and others v. Bheemesh Alias
Bheemappa1. The learned standing counsel for the appellant would
contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the matter to a larger Bench
in view of difference of opinion, as to the criteria to consider the
application i.e date of death or date of consideration of application, in
State Bank of India Vs Sheo Shankar Tewari and prayed to differ the order
till the Hon'ble Apex Court decides the issue.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that
notwithstanding the reference, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bheemesh's
case after noticing the reference, held that the applicability of a modified
scheme should depend only upon a determinant and fixed criteria such as
the date of death and not the indeterminate and variable factor. Thus,
prayed to dismiss the writ appeal.
9. The scope of interference in intra-Court appeal under clause 15
of the Letters Patent Act is limited, unless the findings recorded by the
learned single Judge are illegal, irregular or perverse.
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264
10. In Seshaiah v. South Central Railway2, it was held that in
an intra-Court appeal interference in the order of the learned single Judge
is not as a matter of course and substitute its opinion except where the
discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily.
11. It is admitted fact that the husband of the respondent/writ
petitioner died on 29.05.2006 and the respondent/writ petitioner made
representation/application seeking her appointment on compassionate
grounds in the post of Sweeper-cum-Messenger on 06.01.2007 and the
same was rejected on 27.07.2007.
12. The revised model scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in
lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds and appointment of
dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds was
framed basing on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors.3. The Government of
India, by letter D.O. No.F.18/12004-IR, dated 19.06.2007 advised
modifications to the existing scheme for payment of ex-gratia providing
for compassionate appointment in exceptional cases. The Chief Advisory
Personnel addressed a letter to all Chief Executives of all Public Sector
Banks to adopt the new scheme by the banks with the approval of
Board of Directors preferably by 31.08.2007. It was further indicated in
the said communication that applications for appointment on
compassionate grounds/payment of ex-gratia pending as on 31.07.2004
i.e. the date on which the existing model scheme was circulated by IBA
shall be considered in accordance with the scheme to be revised now.
(2019) (6) ALT 84
JT 1994 (3) SC 525
Further indicated that any application that has been disposed of prior to
31.07.2004 and any order passed thereon shall not be reopened.
13. The Deputy Secretary of Government of Indian addressed a
letter, dated 21.08.2008 to the Chief General Manager, NABARD wherein
it was mentioned that the scheme may be made applicable in Regional
Rural Banks (RRBs) w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Acting upon the letter referred to
supra, the Chief General Manager, NABARD addressed a letter to all
sponsor banks to apply the scheme in Regional Rural Banks w.e.f
01.09.2008.
14. In view of the communications referred supra, the revised
model scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on
compassionate grounds and appointment of dependents of deceased
employees on compassionate grounds was made applicable to Regional
Rural Banks w.e.f. 01.09.2008. However, by impugned letter, dated
27.07.2007, the bank authorities rejected the claim of the writ petitioner
erroneously without following the earlier scheme subsisting as on the date
of death of the husband of the writ petitioner. Except contending that the
new scheme would operate retrospectively nothing was brought to our
notice as to when the new scheme was adopted by Regional Rural Banks,
the appellant herein. In the absence of such material, the letter addressed
by Chief General Manager, NABARD to all sponsor banks to apply the
scheme in Regional Rural Banks w.e.f 01.09.2008 would be the date on
which the new scheme was adopted by the appellant bank.
15. Once this court, in the absence of other material, came to
conclusion that the new scheme was adopted by Regional Rural Banks
with effect from 1-9-2008 the contention of learned standing counsel for
the appellant that the case of the writ petitioner shall not be considered in
the light of the new scheme is liable to be rejected. In fact, the application
of respondent/writ petitioner was rejected on 27-7-2007 before adaptation
of new scheme. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bheemesh's case also
discussed as to whether the date of death of the employee or date of
consideration of the application of the dependent must be taken as
criteria, came to the conclusion that date of death is the criteria to
consider the application.
16. In the case on hand, application was made on 01.06.2007 and
the same was rejected on 27.07.2007 even before the new scheme was
made applicable in regional rural banks which came into effect from
01.09.2008.
17. Thus, viewed from any angle there are no merits in the writ
appeal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
ikn
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT APPEAL NO.1436 of 2014
(per Justice Subba Reddy Satti)
Dt: 08.03.2022
ikn
