Archana Mahendra Arbat vs Maharashtra Gramin Bank Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12854 Bom

                                                                   8023.20wp
                                   (1)

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   930 WRIT PETITION NO.8023 OF 2020

 1.       Smt. Archana wd/o Mahendra Arbat,
          Age: 37 years, Occu: Service with outsourcing
          agency, under Respondent Bank only,
          R/o. Farande Nagar, Near Mahalaxmi Mandir,
          Wadi Budruk Road, Nanded 431605

 2.       Saurabh s/o Ramesh Ghatekar,
          Age: 20 years, Occu: Service with outsourcing
          agency, under Respondent Bank only,
          R/o. At Post Chudava, Tah. Purna,
          Dist. Parbhani

 3.       Pradip s/o Vijay Shinde,
          Age: 30 years, Occu: Service with outsourcing
          agency, under Respondent Bank only,
          R/o. Samta Nagar, Dam Road, Udgir,
          Dist. Latur

 4.       Aakash s/o Pandharinath Rashinkar,
          Age: 26 years, Occu: Service with outsourcing
          agency, under Respondent Bank only,
          R/o. Ashwini Nivas Samta Nagar,
          Behind Sagar Furniture, Gangapur,
          Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad           ...PETITIONERS

          VERSUS

 1.       Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Through its Regional Manager,
          Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Regional Office
          at Nanded

 2.       Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Through its Regional Manager,
          Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Regional Office at Parbhani




::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2021               ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2021 16:33:43 :::
                                                                    8023.20wp
                                  (2)

 3.       Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Through its Branch Manager,
          Maharashtra Gramin Bank at Udgir,
          Dist. Latur

 4.       Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Through its Regional Manager,
          Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Regional Office at Beed

 5.       The General Manager,
          Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Head Office at "Jeevanshree",
          Plot No.35, Sector G, Town Centre,
          CIDCO, Aurangabad

 6.       The Chairman,
          Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
          Head Office at "Jeevanshree",
          Plot No.35, Sector G. Town Centre,
          CIDCO, Aurangabad                       ...RESPONDENTS

 Mr A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for petitioners;
 Mr Pradeep L. Shahane, Advocate for respondents


                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                              AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 8th September, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by

the consent of the parties.

8023.20wp

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (B) and (C) as

under :

"B) The impugned orders of terminating the services of the petitioners dated 12.3.2020 at Annexure- 'B' may kindly be quashed and set aside, by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service as before.

C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondents may kindly be directed to continue the petitioners in service as before, by directing to maintain status-quo as on 11.3.2020."

3. Since the petitioners have approached this Court after their

termination, this Court has not granted them ad-interim relief.

4. This petition has been filed by four identically placed

persons, who were appointed on compassionate basis vide

appointment orders, all dated 04/09/2019. The husband of

petitioner No.1 was in employment of the respondent - Bank,

who died in harness on 22/01/2017. He was working as an

'Office Assistant - Class-III'. He had two children. A daughter

aged 6 years and a son aged 4 years. The father of petitioner No.2

died in harness on 07/07/2015. He was working as a 'Messenger

- Class-IV'. He had two sons and petitioner No.2 is the elder son.

8023.20wp

The father of petitioner No.3 died in harness on 12/11/2017. He

was working as a 'Messenger - Class-IV'. He was survived by a

widow and two children, the petitioner No.3 - son and a daughter.

The father of petitioner No.4 died in harness on 27/01/2018. He

was working as an 'Office Assistant - Class-III'. He was

survived by a widow and petitioner No.4 - son.

5. Identical office orders, all dated 12/03/2020, were issued by

the respondents, thereby terminating the compassionate

appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the scheme

providing for compassionate appointments was adopted by the

Board of Directors of the Bank on 27/02/2019. Since the death of

the bread earner of all these petitioners had occurred prior to

27/02/2019, the Bank concluded that they were not eligible and

hence, by observing that their appointments on compassionate

basis were irregular, they were all terminated.

6. It is undisputed that after their termination, these petitioners

were continued in the temporary employment of the respondents

Bank through an outsourcing agency. In short, were employed as

contract labour.

8023.20wp

7. The learned Advocate for the respondents - Bank

authorities, relies upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri. Sanjay

Sitaram Wagh, Chief General Manager, Maharashtra Gramin

Bank. He refers to the contentions set out in the affidavit-in-reply

and has strenuously opposed this petition. He is instructed to

canvass that as the Board of Directors adopted the compassionate

appointment scheme w.e.f. 27/02/2019, none of these petitioners

would be eligible. This aspect was overlooked while issuing them

appointment orders. This discrepancy was noticed within six

months of their appointments and the respondents immediately

adopted remedial steps to dis-continue these petitioners.

8. We have perused the Circular, annexure R-6 of the

affidavit-in-reply, at page 49 issued by the Banks, which indicates

that the compassionate appointment scheme annexed to the

Circular was made applicable to the Bank w.e.f. 27/02/2019. The

Government of India had granted approval to the scheme on

05/12/2014, so as to be made applicable to all the public sector

Banks and all Regional Rural Banks. The options of adopting

compassionate or payment of lump-sum ex-gratia in lieu of

compassionate appointment was available for the members of the

bereaved family.

8023.20wp

9. Insofar as the scheme for compassionate appointment in

Maharashtra Gramin Banks (respondents herein), the Coverage

Clause 1.1. reads as under :

"1. COVERAGE :-

1.1. To a dependent family member of permanent employee of a Maharashtra Gramin Bank who

a) Dies while in service (including death by suicide) on or after 5th August 2014

b) Is retired on medical grounds on or after 5th August 2014 due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. (Incapacitation is to be certified by a duly appointed Medical Board in a Government Medical College/Government District Head Quarters Hospitals/Panel of Doctors nominated by the Bank for the purpose."

10. Clause 2 prescribes the ambit of dependent family members

as under :

"2. DEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBER :-

2.1. Spouse: or 2.2. Wholly dependent son (including, legally adopted son): or 2.3. Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter) : or

8023.20wp

2.4. Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee."

11. In view of the above, it is clear and leaves no scope for

ambiguity that after the compassionate appointment scheme was

made applicable to the respondents Bank, it granted coverage to

such dependent family members, whose sole bread earner had

died while in service on or after 05/08/2014. Cases of death due

to suicide were also included to enable the dependent family

members to seek compassionate appointment. Retirement on

medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of

55 years, made the dependent family members eligible for

compassionate appointment.

12. We find that the impugned orders which are cryptic in

nature, have been issued by the authority of the respondents Bank

without applying mind to the Coverage Clause which was a part

of the scheme that was adopted by the Bank. It goes without

saying that the Bank consciously did not alter the Coverage

Clause since the scheme was made applicable under the orders of

the Government of India having approved the scheme for all

public sector Banks and Regional Rural Banks. The petitioners

were, therefore, rightly appointed.

8023.20wp

13. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of

prayer clause (B) reproduced above. The petitioners, however,

would not be entitled for back wages from the date they have been

deployed in the same Bank through an outsourcing agency till

they are reinstated in employment. The respondents Bank shall

reinstate them expeditiously and preferably within two weeks

from today. Notional continuity of service is granted and as such,

there would be no break in service of the petitioners.

14. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that these

petitioners are yet to be paid their salary after they joined duties

pursuant to their appointment on compassionate basis. In the light

of this request, we are sure that the respondents Bank would

consider the said prayer fairly unless there is any legal

impediment, within four weeks from today.

15. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

sjk