Delhi High Court
Meera Maharishi vs Vijaya Bank on 10 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7393/2012
% 10th September , 2013
MEERA MAHARISHI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Benati, Adv.
VERSUS
VIJAYA BANK ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Ishwar
Upreja, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is the widow of late Sh.
Laxmi Narain; an employee of the respondent-bank; seeks that respondent
should give ex-gratia payment to the petitioner in accordance with its
scheme. Respondent-bank previously had a scheme of compassionate
appointment in case of death of an employee in harness, and which was
substituted by the extant scheme of grant of ex-gratia payment. Late Sh.
Laxmi Narain was working as a telephone operator with the respondent-
bank.
WPC 7393/2012 Page 1 of 5
2. The respondent-bank has filed its counter-affidavit. Alongwith the
counter-affidavit the scheme in question, application which was filed by the
petitioner for grant of ex-gratia payment and a certificate of the SHO
(P.S.Najafgarh) have been filed.
3. The issue is that whether petitioner satisfies the requirement of the
scheme for grant of ex-gratia payment. Firstly, as per the scheme in
question, a person can get ex-gratia payment if the total sources of monthly
income of the dependants of the deceased are less than 60% of the last
drawn gross salary. To determine this last drawn gross salary, all the
terminal benefits which are received by the dependants of the deceased, have
to be added and which include provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment
and other amounts received. When we see the application filed by the
petitioner, all that is stated with respect to this relevant paragraph 8 is that it
is stated that "Already Settled by Bank". Therefore, the application is silent
as to the total amounts which are available to the petitioner for determining
whether such amounts as corpus can be yielded less than 60% of the gross
salary. I may note that counsel for the respondent-bank says that petitioner
has other deposits in banks, and a photocopy of one such deposit was
endeavoured to be shown to the Court at the time of the arguments. The
WPC 7393/2012 Page 2 of 5
petitioner therefore cannot be said to have submitted a complete application
and thus she was not entitled to succeed in her claim. Petitioner it appears
wanted to deliberately conceal facts. Since the ex-gratia payment is in
addition to the service benefits which are already paid, the respondent-bank
is entitled to ensure strict compliance of the requirements of the scheme.
4. As per the scheme in question, benefit of ex-gratia payment cannot be
granted in case the employee has committed suicide. A reference to the
application filed by the petitioner shows that it is written that the employee
Laxmi Narain died because of heart failure. Besides the fact that no
certificate was attached to show heart failure, the respondent-bank has filed
a certificate of Station House Officer (SHO) of P.S.Najafgarh which shows
that Late Laxmi Narain had consumed some poisonous substance. This
certificate reads as under:-
"It is certified that Laxmi Narain S/o Durga Narain R/o
Saraswati Vihar, Surabh Pur Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, had
died on 13/11/1997 as he had consumed some poisonous
substance. In this regard inquest proceeding u/s 174 Cr. P.C.
were conducted by SI Shailender Singh and a D.D.entry was
also lodged vide No. 93B dated 14/11/97 P.S.Najafgarh to this
effect.
No criminal case was registered in this regard."
WPC 7393/2012 Page 3 of 5
5. A reading of the aforesaid certificate shows that the deceased Laxmi
Narain who was an employee of the respondent-bank had committed suicide
by consuming some poisonous substance and thus petitioner was not entitled
to the ex-gratia payment.
6. Counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that since this certificate
shows that no criminal case was registered, it should be concluded that Late
Laxmi Narain did not commit suicide and possibly may have wrongly
consumed poisonous substance. I cannot agree. It is quite clear that
petitioner is concealing facts. This certificate admittedly was never filed
with the respondent-bank and respondent-bank because of its pro-active
approach received this certificate from the SHO, P.S. Najafgarh. Argument
urged by the counsel for the petitioner that late Laxmi Narain should not be
held to have committed suicide because no criminal case was registered is
the argument in futility because unless and until there is abetment to suicide
there was no need of filing a criminal case against any person.
7. In my opinion, petitioner fails to comply with the requirements of the
scheme. Petitioner has in fact deliberately concealed facts not only in
seeking ex-gratia payment but also at the time of approaching this Court, and
thus the ex-gratia payment is not due and payable to the petitioner.
WPC 7393/2012 Page 4 of 5
8. I am not imposing the costs in spite of gross concealment of facts by
the petitioner because petitioner is a widow.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
