[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pramod Govind Sagalgile vs The General Managaer, Canara Bank And ... on 6 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:93-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9433 OF 2014
Shri. Pramod S/o. Govind Sagalgile,
Age : 47 years, Occup. Pensioner,
R/o. Ward No. 1, Atithi Colony, Shrirampur,
Post & Tal. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The General Manager,
Canara Bank, Peresonal Wing/H.R.Wing,
Head Office Bangalore - 2.
2. The Assistant General Manager,
HRM Section, Circle Office, Pune,
Shivaji Road, Near Mangla Talkies,
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411 005. ... Respondents
...
• Mr. Rahul A. Tambe, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. Aditya N. Sikchi, Advocate h/f. Mr. Vaibhav R. Patil,
Advocate for Respondent No. 2
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J
AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
RESERVED ON : 09.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.01.2026
JUDGMENT :
[PER MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.]
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the
following reliefs:-
"A) This writ petition may kindly be allowed.
B) By way of issuing an appropriate order or directions to the
respondent No. (1) & (2) to decide the application dt.
01.11.2013 for issuing appointment order on compassionate or
any other appropriate ground to the Physically Handicapped
and Disabled son of the petitioner.
BB) By issuing appropriate orders or directions the impugned
letter dated 16.01.2017 issued by the Respondent - Bank
annexed at Exhibit 'M' may kindly be quashed and set aside and
further the Respondent - Bank may be directed to consider the
applications of the petitioner and issue appointment order in
favour of the son of the petitioner namely Vaibhav Pramod
Sagalgile on compassionate ground with the Respondent - Bank
and for that purpose issue necessary orders;
DD) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition
direct the Respondent - bank to consider the applications of the
petitioner and issue appointment order in favour of the son of
the petitioner namely Vaibhav Pramod Sagalgile on
compassionate ground with the Respondent - Bank and for that
purpose issue necessary orders."
2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Canara
Bank as a Clerk vide appointment order dated 01.06.1989, and his
service record remained satisfactory. He was promoted to the post of
Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 01.03.2008. The
petitioner started suffering from serious health problems from the
year 2000 and underwent major surgery for Nephrotic Syndrome in
the year 2001. Since then, he has been under continuous medical
treatment for the said ailment and was compelled to avail medical
leave and all other eligible leave due to his serious health condition.
Due to prolonged illness and irregular attendance, the superior
officers of the respondent-Bank advised the petitioner either to
attend duties regularly or to opt for voluntary retirement from
service. Although about 14 years of service were still remaining
before his date of superannuation, the petitioner was left with no
alternative but to seek voluntary retirement on the ground of poor
health of self and his elder son. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted
an application dated 22.02.2013 seeking voluntary retirement, along
with necessary medical documents evidencing his medical condition,
which was accepted and made effective from 01.06.2013. The
petitioner's son, Vaibhav, is a physically handicapped and disabled
person and has been undergoing medical treatment for a prolonged
period. The petitioner was required to incur substantial expenditure
towards the medical treatment of his son. Accordingly, the petitioner
also submitted medical records pertaining to his son to demonstrate
the extent of his disability and incapacitation.
3. Be that as it may, the respondent-Bank accepted the
petitioner's request for voluntary retirement, and the petitioner stood
retired from service with effect from 20.07.2013. Even prior to
submitting the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner
had made several representations to the respondent-Bank seeking
appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. The respondent-
Bank, however, expressed its inability to accede to the said request by
communication dated 14.12.2013, stating that appointments on
compassionate grounds had been discontinued with effect from
January 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a further
application dated 09.04.2014, pointing out that he had been
compelled to seek voluntary retirement much before completion of
his remaining 14 years of service, and therefore his physically
disabled son deserved to be considered for appointment on
compassionate grounds to ensure a regular source of income for the
family. It was specifically stated that the family was facing acute
financial hardship after the petitioner's voluntary retirement,
particularly in view of the substantial medical expenses incurred for
the treatment of his disabled son. The respondent-Bank, by
communication dated 29.04.2014, rejected the said application on
the ground that appointments could be made only through direct
recruitment and not on compassionate grounds.
4. The respondent-Bank thereafter introduced a scheme for
appointment on compassionate grounds with effect from 05.08.2014,
which provided for such appointment in cases where a regular
employee retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before
attaining the age of 55 years, subject to certification by a duly
constituted Medical Board of a Government Medical College
nominated by the Bank. In view of the aforesaid scheme, the
petitioner submitted an application dated 07.04.2015 seeking
compassionate appointment in favour of his son Vaibhav, contending
that he had sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds and that
the family was struggling to make both ends meet. Similarly, the
petitioner's son also submitted applications dated 07.01.2015,
08.07.2015 and 03.11.2015, seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds with the respondent-Bank, along with his disability
certificate. The petitioner further submitted an application dated
20.10.2015, requesting that he be referred for medical examination
by the panel of doctors or the Civil Surgeon, as contemplated under
the scheme. However, by communication dated 16.01.2017, the
respondent-Bank informed the petitioner's son about the rejection of
the application on the following grounds:
(i) That the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds is
applicable with effect from 05.08.2014, whereas the petitioner's
service came to an end on 20.07.2013;
(ii) And that mere resignation or voluntary retirement on medical
grounds is not sufficient for consideration of compassionate
appointment unless the employee had submitted a medical
incapacitation certificate at the time of submitting the resignation or
application for voluntary retirement.
5. In view of the rejection of the claim by communication dated
16.01.2017, the petitioner sought amendment of the writ petition
and prayed for quashing and setting aside of the said communication.
Accordingly, by order dated 03.10.2017 (or relevant date as per
record), this Court was pleased to grant leave to carry out the
amendment and take the impugned communication on record. The
Court also noted that the petitioner's request for compassionate
appointment in favour of his physically handicapped son had been
declined by the respondent-Bank vide communication dated
16.01.2017.
6. The petitioner has raised several grounds in support of his
claim for consideration of appointment of his disabled son on
compassionate grounds. It is submitted that Clause 24 of the relevant
scheme provides that applications which were pending as on
04.08.2014, or applications submitted on or before the said date, are
required to be dealt with in accordance with the earlier governing
schemes/circulars. The petitioner asserts that he had submitted
several applications seeking compassionate appointment both before
and after 04.08.2014, which were pending for consideration with the
respondent-Bank, and therefore his case squarely falls within the
protective ambit of Clause 24 of the scheme.
7. The reply dated 29.04.2014, annexed to the petition as Exhibit
'J', itself demonstrates that the petitioner had sought consideration for
compassionate appointment prior to the cut-off date of 04.08.2014,
as contemplated under Clause 19.24 (Clause 24) of the Scheme of
2015. The said clause cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to
exclude or defeat the claim of the petitioner's son for compassionate
consideration, particularly when the claim arises on account of the
petitioner's medical incapacitation and was pending consideration.
8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 itself reveals
that one of the grounds for rejection of the application is that the
scheme is applicable with effect from 05.08.2014, whereas the
petitioner had obtained voluntary retirement and his services stood
terminated with effect from 20.07.2013. However, it is contended
that the petitioner's application dated 09.04.2014, which was
admittedly submitted prior to the cut-off date of 04.08.2014, has
been deliberately ignored, with a view to oust the petitioner's
legitimate claim. It is therefore submitted that the impugned
communication suffers from arbitrariness and is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
9. Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner
pertains to the financial condition of the petitioner's family. It is
submitted that the petitioner was compelled to retire from service
nearly 14 years prior to his actual date of superannuation and is
required to continuously bear the medical expenses of his physically
disabled son. These circumstances have resulted in severe financial
hardship to the family. It is contended that the petitioner's claim has
been rejected on purely technical grounds and, therefore, the
petitioner's son is entitled either to appointment on compassionate
grounds or, in the alternative, to lump-sum ex-gratia compensation in
terms of HO Circular No. 35 of 2005 dated 14.02.2005 and Circular
No. 262 of 2007 dated 24.09.2007, which provide for payment of ex-
gratia compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment in cases
where employees had voluntarily retired on medical grounds prior to
05.08.2014.
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the aforesaid Circular dated 14.02.2005 was issued by the
respondent-Bank as a model scheme for payment of monetary
assistance in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, with the
approval of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, with a
view to strike a balance between the Bank's organisational objectives
and its social obligation towards the families of employees who had
either died in harness or had voluntarily retired on account of
medical incapacitation, in lieu of compassionate appointment. The
said circular provides that ex-gratia payment shall be admissible
where the resignation or voluntary retirement has been approved by
the competent authority, as stipulated under Clause 5 thereof. In the
present case, the petitioner's premature retirement on account of
medical incapacitation having been duly approved by the competent
authority, the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia payment even under
the Circular dated 14.02.2005.
11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that, in furtherance of the scheme framed in accordance with the
guidelines issued by the Indian Banks' Association, the respondent-
Canara Bank adopted an additional scheme by issuing Circular No.
262 of 2007 dated 24.09.2007, providing for lump-sum ex-gratia
payment in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. The said
circular also extended the benefit of lump-sum ex-gratia
compensation to employees who sought premature retirement on
account of incapacitation before attaining the age of 55 years, in lieu
of compassionate appointment. It is therefore submitted that even
under the Circular dated 24.09.2007, the petitioner is entitled to the
alternative relief of lump-sum ex-gratia payment, in lieu of
compassionate appointment of his son, in the event it is held that the
petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment under the
Scheme of 2015.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M.
Mahesh Kumar (AIR 2015 SC 2411), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the stand of the Bank that the claim could not be
considered merely on account of passage of time was untenable and
accordingly upheld the direction issued by the High Court directing
the Bank to reconsider the claim of the applicant. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that the contention of the Bank that the
claimant's family was receiving family pension and terminal benefits
would be of no consequence while considering a claim for
compassionate appointment.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tambe, further relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda
Sethy v. State of Orissa and Others (2022 SCC OnLine 684), wherein
the Court observed:
"16. Before parting with the present order, we are
constrained to observe that considering the object and
purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a
family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position
of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the
employee while in service and the basis or policy is
immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the
family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely
death, the authorities must consider and decide such
applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as
per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a
period of six months from the date of submission of such
completed applications."
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7489 of
2023 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3309 of 2023, in the case of
Govind Janardan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Court
noted:
It is very unfortunate that the concerned respondents
raised a contention before the High Court that as the family of
the appellant has survived for 15 years after the death of the
appellant's father, he is not entitled to compassionate
appointment. In our view, considering the concept of Welfare
State, the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 ought not to have raised
such a contention, especially when the appellant is making
both ends meet by working as a labourer. Thus, none of the
four grounds mentioned above are available to the respondent
Nos. 3 and 5."
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
15. Thus, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Bank had accepted the petitioner's application for
voluntary retirement on the ground of medical incapacity/poor
health without insisting upon any medical certificate. This, he
contends, indicates that the respondent Bank itself found the
petitioner's case worthy of consideration and did not require
verification of his medical status. It is further argued that the 2015
scheme provides coverage for employees retiring on medical grounds
due to incapacitation with effect from 05.08.2014, and that pending
applications as on 04.08.2014, or applications submitted after
05.08.2014 with respect to death or eligible circumstances prior to
04.08.2014, were to be examined in accordance with the circulars
dated 14.02.2005 and 24.09.2007. Even in accordance with Clause
24 of the scheme dated 20.03.2015, the petitioner is entitled to a
lumpsum exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment for
his son. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 is
illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.
16. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the incapacitation certificate of the petitioner cannot be used as
a ground against him, as the petitioner's application for voluntary
retirement on account of poor health was accepted by the Bank
without requiring any medical certificate. The petitioner had also
requested the respondent Bank to refer his case to the panel of
doctors; however, the Bank did not do so and accepted his application
outright. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied relief merely on
the ground of inaction by the respondent Bank in referring his case to
the Medical Board or Civil Surgeon as per the panel of doctors of the
Bank.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT - BANK
17. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, Mr. Sikchi,
vehemently opposes the present petition on the ground that the Bank
formulated the scheme for compassionate appointment on
20.03.2015, to be effective from 05.08.2014, and no such scheme
existed prior to 2015. As per Clause 23 of the 2015 scheme,
applications filed by dependents after 05.08.2014 are eligible for
compassionate appointment only if the employee sought voluntary
retirement on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching
the age of 55 years, and such incapacitation is to be certified by the
Medical Board of a Government Medical College nominated by the
Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner should have been examined himself
by the Medical Board to claim compassionate appointment of his son.
In the absence of any medical certificate issued by the competent
board or hospital, the petitioner cannot claim benefits under the
2015 scheme.
18. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent
No. 2 - Bank that appointment on compassionate grounds or ex-
gratia lumpsum payment in view of voluntary retirement cannot be
granted merely at the request of the employee. The financial
condition of the employee's family is a primary consideration, and
such benefits are to be granted only if the family is found to be
indigent and genuinely in need of financial assistance under the
scheme. The petitioner's family, however, has been granted all retiral
benefits, including gratuity, provident fund, pension mutation, and a
monthly pension of Rs. 36,480 at the time of retirement. Therefore,
the petitioner's family has a sufficient source of income and cannot be
considered indigent or in need of financial support from the
respondent Bank.
19. It is vehemently submitted by the respondent Bank that Clause
13 of the scheme of 2015 clarifies that "near disability" does not
equate to "incapacitation," and the mere acceptance of an employee's
resignation on account of incapacitation does not automatically
entitle the petitioner to consideration for compassionate
appointment. The certificate issued by the competent authority or the
medical board is mandatory for such consideration under the scheme.
20. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
Bank that Clause 24 of the Scheme of 2015 provides that applications
for compassionate appointment filed before 05.08.2014 shall be
governed in terms of Circular No. 35 of 2005, dated 14.02.2005, and
Circular No. 262 of 2007, dated 24.09.2007. Both these circulars
relate only to the payment of ex gratia lumpsum amounts in lieu of
compassionate appointment and do not provide any scheme for
actual appointment on compassionate grounds for applications filed
prior to the issuance of the Scheme of 2015. It is further submitted
that although the circular dated 24.09.2007 provided for
compassionate appointment, the same was allowed only in the case
of death of an employee and not in cases of retirement on medical
grounds. Voluntary retirement due to poor health cannot be equated
with retirement on medical incapacitation, and therefore, the
petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs prayed for, i.e., the
appointment of his son on compassionate grounds, nor is he entitled
to any ex gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of such appointment.
21. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent Bank that no post facto sanction by the Medical Board
regarding the petitioner's medical incapacitation can be permitted, as
the petitioner retired on 20.07.2013, well before the introduction of
the Scheme of 2015. Consequently, there is no merit in the present
petition, and it is liable to be dismissed.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank further
emphasized that the Courts cannot incorporate provisions into the
Bank's policy, as any policy regarding compassionate appointment is
governed solely by the Bank's scheme. Any deviation from the
scheme would result in unfairness and injustice to other individuals
who have been subject to the same conditions. The present petition
was filed in 2014, and the petitioner's family has survived without
financial assistance, including ex gratia, from the respondent Bank,
indicating that the family is not in genuine need of such assistance.
Furthermore, in the absence of any medical certification of the
petitioner from the panel of doctors, the petitioner is not entitled to
ex gratia payment, as no timely application for the same was
submitted by the petitioner.
CONSIDERATION
23. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tambe,
and learned counsel for the respondent Bank, Mr. Sikchi, at length.
We have also examined the documents filed along with the present
petition, the reply filed by the respondent Bank, and the judgments
relied upon by both parties.
24. A perusal of the impugned communication dated 16.01.2017
reveals that the respondent Bank rejected the petitioner's claim on
two grounds:
i. The scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds
is applicable with effect from 05.08.2014, whereas Mr. Pramod
S/o. Govind Sagalgile obtained VRS and ceased service on
20.07.2013. The scheme is applicable only to
employees/officers who retired on medical grounds on or after
05.08.2014.
ii. Mere resignation or voluntary retirement on medical
grounds is not sufficient to consider appointment on
compassionate grounds. A medical incapacitation certificate
must be submitted at the time of submitting the
resignation/VRS application. In the petitioner's case, he had
taken VRS on medical grounds without submitting such a
certificate at the relevant time.
25. The voluntary VRS application of the petitioner was accepted
without requiring any medical examination, even though he sought
voluntary retirement due to his own poor health and the medical
condition of his son. Consequently, it cannot be contended that the
petitioner was not issued any certificate of medical incapacitation.
Moreover, Clause B(iii) of the circular dated 24.09.2007 does not
require submission of a medical certificate from any competent
authority or panel of doctors for entitlement to exgratia payment in
lieu of compassionate appointment.
26. A perusal of Clause 24 of the Scheme of 2015, relied upon by
both the respondent Bank and the petitioner, provides that the
pending applications as on 04.08.2014, or applications submitted on
or before 05.08.2014, with respect to death or other eligible
circumstances, shall continue to be examined in terms of HO Circular
No. 35 of 2005 dated 14.02.2005 and Circular No. 262 of 2007 dated
24.09.2007.
27. Taking into consideration the aforesaid clause, it is evident that
the petitioner's application filed on 09.04.2014 ought to have been
considered under the provisions of the aforementioned circulars
dated 14.02.2005 and 24.09.2007. The circular dated 24.09.2007,
provides for payment of monetary assistance in lieu of appointment
on compassionate grounds. The objective of the circular is to strike a
balance between the business objectives of the Bank and the social
obligations towards family members of employees who either died in
harness or voluntarily resigned due to total medical incapacitation.
The circular dated 14.02.2005 provides comprehensive coverage for
consideration, laying down the eligibility criteria, methods of
calculation, and time limits for claiming ex gratia. The time limit for
claiming ex gratia is six months from the date of death of the
employee or the date of resignation/voluntary retirement.
28. The circular dated 24.09.2007 also provided for various
considerations, including the eligibility criteria for appointment on
compassionate grounds and the scheme for payment of a lump-sum
ex gratia in lieu of such appointment. It specifically held that the
terms and conditions of the earlier circular dated 14.02.2005
remained unchanged. Further, the 24.09.2007 circular provided for
payment of ex gratia to employees seeking premature retirement due
to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years.
29. The petitioner retired in the year 2013, well before attaining
the age of 55 years, and his retirement was accepted with effect from
20.07.2013. The application for voluntary retirement was accepted
by the respondent Bank without insisting on any medical certificate.
It can thus be inferred that the Bank found the petitioner's case
genuine, as it neither sought any certificate of incapacitation nor
referred the petitioner to a medical board to verify his medical
condition.
30. The circular of 2007 further provided that the eligibility criteria
suggested by the Indian Banks' Association for dealing with cases
under the scheme for payment of lump-sum ex gratia would be
formulated as under:
B SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF LUMPSUM EXGRATIA
AMOUNT IN LIEU OF APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUNDS - SCHEME IN BRIEF
(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.
31. Clause (iii) of the aforesaid scheme of 2007 provides that any
employee seeking pre-retirement due to incapacitation before
reaching the age of 55 years is entitled to receive a lump-sum ex
gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. The
2007 scheme, as a preface, states that it is a revised modular scheme
on the subject of payment of lump-sum ex gratia in lieu of
appointment on compassionate grounds.
32. The eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause (iii), as quoted
hereinabove, show that there is no requirement for medical
certification or other formalities, unlike the 2005 scheme, particularly
Clause 5, which emphasizes submission of medical
grounds/incapacitation. The 2007 scheme provides for premature
retirement due to incapacitation but does not mandate any
certification from a panel of doctors.
33. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondent Bank to
consider the petitioner's case and process the application for
compassionate appointment in accordance with the 2007 circular,
i.e., circular dated 24.09.2007 as the circular was holding the field,
when petitioners sought retirement in the year 2013.
34. As discussed above, the scheme of 2007 does not require any
certification by a panel of doctors. Therefore, the insistence upon
submission of a medical certificate by the respondent Bank, as
reflected in the impugned communication dated 16.01.2017, is
arbitrary, lacks legal basis, and is liable to be set aside.
35. It is further pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the judgment of Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra)
held that the plea of the Bank that a claim cannot be considered due
to the passage of time is not tenable. The Court also observed that
the fact that the claimant's family is receiving family pension and
other retiral benefits is of no consequence in determining entitlement
to compassionate appointment.
36. Respondent Bank, therefore, ought to have referred to Clause
24 of the 2015 scheme, which provides that applications filed after
05.08.2014 with respect to death or other eligible circumstances
prior to 04.08.2014 are to be governed by the circulars of 2005 and
2007. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to note that the 2007
circular did not impose any requirement for examination of
incapacitation by a panel of doctors or any such certification.
Consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment could have been appropriately addressed
by granting a lumpsum exgratia amount in lieu of compassionate
appointment, in respect of the application submitted by the petitioner
on 09.04.2014, which was initially rejected by the reply dated
29.04.2014 and subsequently by impugned communication dated
16.01.2017. The grounds taken by Respondent Bank to reject the
petitioner's claim appear to be a deliberate attempt to deprive the
petitioner of his rightful entitlement under the 2007 circular.
37. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner's application
for voluntary retirement clearly demonstrates that he sought
retirement on account of his own poor health as well as the medical
condition of his son, who is physically handicapped and dependent
upon him. The petitioner himself was suffering from serious health
issues and was required to undergo treatment while also bearing
substantial medical expenses for his son. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is entitled to the exgratia amount in terms of Clause B(iii)
of the circular dated 24.09.2007.
38. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 issued by
the Respondent Bank is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) The Respondent Bank is directed to consider the
application of the petitioner for appointment of his son on
compassionate ground and in lieu thereof grant the
lumpsum exgratia payment, in accordance with Clause
(iii) of the circular dated 24.09.2007.
(d) The Bank shall complete the process of sanctioning and
disbursing the exgratia amount within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of passing of the order.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. ) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)
