Central Bank Of India vs Marni Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 3697 Jhar

                             -1-



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                L.P.A. No.704 of 2019
                          ----
     Central Bank of India, Regional Office Ranchi,
     represented through its Chief Manager, Mr. Anil Kumar
     Suman aged about 54 years son of Lt. Baldeo Sharma
     both having their Office at 2nd Floor, Krishna Arcade,
     Dipatoli, Booty More, P.O. Bariatu & P.S. Sadar, District
     Ranchi (Jharkhand)
                         ...    ...      Appellant/Respondent
                           Versus
1.   Marni Devi, wife of Late Narayan Singh, resident of
     House of Surendra Rawani, Mohalla Koiri Tola, P.O. &
     P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar, (Jharkhand) present
     address House of Girish Singh, 56 Set, Kumhar Toli,
     P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
                         ...    ...      Respondent/Petitioner
2.   General Manager (HRD) Central Bank of India, Head
     Office Chandramukhi, P.O. & P.S. Nariman Point,
     District Mumbai State Maharastra.
3.   Assistant Regional Manager, Central Bank of India,
     Zonal Office, HRD, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District Patna
     (Bihar).
4.   Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Satsang Nagar
     Branch, P.O. & P.S. Satsangnagar, District Deoghar
     (Jharkhand).
          ...    ...    Proforma Respondents /Respondents
                              With
                         L.P.A.No.756 of 2019
                               ----
     Marni Devi, aged about 64 years, wife of Late Narayan
     Singh, resident of House of Surendra Rawani, Mohalla
     Koiritola, P.O. & P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar,
     (Jharkhand) presenting residing in the house of Girish
     Singh, 56-Set, Kumhar Toli, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
     District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
                         ...    ...      Petitioner/Appellant
                           Versus
1.   General Manager (HRD) Central Bank of India, having
     its head office at Chandramukhi, P.O. & P.S. Nariman
     Point, District Mumbai-400021 (Maharastra).
2.   Assistant Regional Manager, Central Bank of India,
                                   -2-



     Zonal Office, HRD, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District Patna-
     800001 (Bihar).
3.   Manager, Central bank of India, Regional Office, P.Box
     No.89, Jatin Chandra Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur,
     District Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand).
4. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Satsangnagar
   Branch, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Satsangnagar, District
   Deoghar-814116 (Jharkhand).
                ...    ... Respondents/Respondents
                       -------
CORAM :      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                        ------
[In L.P.A. No.704 of 2019]
For the Appellant             : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1            : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
[In L.P.A. No.756 of 2019]
For the Appellant             : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents           : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Advocate
                                --------
C.A.V. on 01.09.2022                Pronounced on 14.09.2022

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Both these appeals were directed to be heard side by

side vide order dated 17.02.2020 on the basis of the

submission made on behalf of Respondent No.1 that another

intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No.704 of 2019 has been

preferred against the impugned order by the respondent-

Bank. Accordingly, both the appeals have been heard

together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Both these intra-court appeals, preferred under Clause

10 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the

order/judgment dated 06.09.2019 passed by learned Single

Judge of this Court in writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 1663 of

2013 whereby and whereunder the impugned orders dated

01.02.2011 and 31.08.2015 have been quashed with a

direction upon the respondent-Bank to act in view of the

provisions or scheme dated 09.04.2008 and release the ex-

gratia amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the

order.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the

writ proceedings, which are required to be enumerated, read

as under :-

The husband of the petitioner, who was working with

the respondent Bank as Head Cashier in Satsangnagar,

Deoghar Branch, died in harness on 04.12.2010. The writ

petitioner applied for appointment on 04.01.2011. The writ

petitioner was intimated by order dated 01.02.2011 that the

scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is no more

prevalent in the Bank and it has been substituted by the

scheme of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment

on compassionate grounds. The ex-gratia amount has also

been refused to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner on the

ground that the total monthly income of the family of the

deceased employee arrived at is more than 60% of the last

drawn gross salary.

The writ petitioner preferred this writ petition against

the aforesaid order dated 01.02.2011. The Bank, in the

meanwhile, came out with a new scheme dated 08.04.2015

whereby the sole scheme has been substituted with the new

scheme containing a provision of compassionate appointment

as well as the payment of ex-gratia amount.

The writ petitioner again approached the respondent

Bank to provide relief in view of the new scheme but the same

was negated vide communication dated 31.08.2015.

Therefore, by filing an interlocutory application amendment

in the relief portion of the writ petition was sought for.

The writ petitioner took the plea before the learned

Single Judge that the rejection of the claim of payment of ex-

gratia amount in view of the scheme dated 09.04.2008

cannot be said to be proper since the matter was pending

before the respondent-Bank and, as such, the case of the writ

petitioner was fit to be considered under the new scheme

dated 08.04.2015,

The learned Single Judge has framed the issue as to

under which scheme the case of the writ petitioner needs to

be considered and accordingly, by considering Clause-5 and

6 of the new scheme which contains a cut-off date i.e.,

05.08.2014 and the husband of the writ petitioner died on

04.12.2010 which is much prior to the cut-off date and, as

such, came to a conclusive finding to the effect that the case

of the writ petitioner falls under the old scheme. But, the

learned Single Judge has recorded a finding about rejection of

the claim of the writ petitioner under the old scheme is not

tenable as the bank has taken part of income from the

employee under the scheme by depositing the lump sum

amount in the name of provident fund, gratuity, leave

encashment, calculating monthly income of the family of the

deceased employee to be more than 60% of the last drawn

gross salary. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has found

the aforesaid calculation to be incorrect by taking into

consideration the fact about payment of pensionery benefit to

be not a charity and as such the impugned orders dated

01.02.2011 and 31.08.2015 have been quashed with a

direction upon the respondent-Bank to act in view of the

provisions or scheme dated 09.04.2008 and release the ex-

gratia amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the

order, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court

appeals.

4. The intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No.704 of 2019 has

been preferred by the Bank being aggrieved with the order

passed by learned Single Judge by which the orders dated

01.02.2011 and 31.08.2015 have been quashed.

While on the other hand, L.P.A. No.756 of 2019 has

been preferred by the writ petitioner assailing the order

passed by the learned Single Judge whereby appointment on

compassionate ground has been denied.

5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-Bank, has submitted that the claim of the writ

petitioner for ex-gratia amount has rightly been rejected on

the basis of the decision contained in scheme dated

09.04.2008 which contains a formula to consider the cases

for disbursement of ex-gratia amount to be based upon the

disbursement of the terminal benefit after death of the

concerned employee.

According to the learned counsel, the learned Single

Judge, although has come to the conclusion about

applicability of the old scheme dated 09.04.2008 considering

the date of death of the husband of the writ petitioner, but

even then holding the writ petitioner entitled for

disbursement of ex-gratia amount on the ground that the

calculation of terminal benefit for taking a decision about

entitlement of disbursement of ex-gratia amount, is not

correct. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed

gross error in holding the writ petitioner entitled for ex-gratia

compensation even holding the scheme dated 09.04.2008

applicable in the case of the writ petitioner which contains a

condition about calculation of the terminal benefit for the

purpose of entitlement of the ex-gratia compensation.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

writ petitioner-respondent in L.P.A. No.704 of 2019, has

submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed no

error in passing the order about entitlement of ex-gratia

compensation to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner,

reason being that the terminal benefit cannot be said to be

the criteria for determination of ex-gratia amount since, the

terminal benefit is the right of the deceased employee which

cannot be calculated for the purpose of ex-gratia

compensation to be paid after the death of the bread earner.

According to him, learned Single Judge, after taking into

consideration this aspect of the matter, is correct in holding

the writ petitioner entitled for disbursement of ex-gratia

amount and, therefore, the impugned order to that effect may

be not interfered with.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, while arguing in L.P.A. No.756 of

2019 on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant, assailing the

order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby and

whereunder prayer for appointment on compassionate

ground has been denied, has submitted that the learned

Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the denial

of appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of ex-gratia

amount cannot be considered to be correct approach.

According to learned counsel, when the deceased

employee has died, in order to provide immediate succor to

the dependent of the bereaved family, appointment on

compassionate ground is required to be provided but the

learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the

matter in right perspective, therefore, the impugned order

suffers from an error so far as this cause of action is

concerned.

7. While on the other hand, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned

counsel appearing for the Bank, submits that the learned

Single Judge is correct in not passing any direction for

appointment on compassionate ground taking into

consideration the applicability of the scheme dated

09.04.2008 which contains no provision to provide

appointment on compassionate ground.

He further submits that so far as the appointment on

compassionate ground is concerned, the same is always to be

given on the basis of the scheme in vogue at the time of death

of the deceased employee and, therefore, the learned Single

Judge is correct in passing no direction for appointment on

compassionate ground after taking into consideration the

applicability of the scheme dated 09.04.2008.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties,

perused the documents available on record as also the

finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned

order.

9. This Court, after having appreciated the material

available on record, has found that in the writ petition

following prayers have been made :-

"(i) An appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the respondents authorities to

immediately and forthwith give compassionate appointment to the petitioner or legal heirs of the petitioner against the services of her

husband as the husband of the petitioner died while in service and the same prayer was not considered by respondent authority vide letter

no.RO/HRD/2010-11/2016 dated 1.02.2011 (Annexure-2).

(ii) A further writ/order/direction, directing the respondents authorities to pay to the Ex-

gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds which was applied within six month on 04.01.2011 (Annexure-1).

(iii) Inserted vide amendment petition (I.A.

No.4821 of 2015).

For issuance of a writ in the nature of „Certiorari‟ for quashing the order dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Sri V.T. Hude, Sr. Manager (R&P/SCT), whereby and whereunder the Petitioner‟s claim for the payment of Ex-

gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on Compassionate ground has been rejected on the sole ground that the

financial condition of the family is not indigent in nature in view of Govt./IBA guidelines and as per provision of Scheme.

- 10 -

(iv) Inserted vide amendment petition (I.A. No.4955 of 2017) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari

for quashing of the order dated 01.04.2012 passed by Manager, Regional office, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner‟s claim

for the payment of Ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on Compassionate ground has been rejected on the sole ground that the financial condition of the family is not indigent in nature in view of Govt./IBA guidelines and as per provision of Scheme.

(v) Inserted vide amendment petition (I.A. No.4204 of 2019) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s) / direction (s) in the nature of „Certiorari‟ for quashing the order dated 31/08/2015, bearing Memo No. CO/HRD/R&P/Ex-Gratia/15-

16/347, whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground and also the claim of

the payment of Ex-gratia lump sum amount, has been arbitrarily rejected on non-est ground."

10. This Court, before scrutinizing the legality and propriety

of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer herein

the position of law so far as the appointment on

compassionate ground and the applicability of the scheme is

- 11 -

concerned.

It is not in dispute that the appointment on

compassionate ground is to be considered and granted on the

basis of the scheme meant for that. In this regard, reference

may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex

Court in Canara Bank and Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar,

(2015) 7 SCC 412, wherein the question fell for consideration

was whether the scheme passed in 2005 providing for

ex-gratia payment or the scheme then in vogue in 1993

providing for compassionate appointment is applicable to the

respondent (para-12).

The issue about applicability of the scheme has been

considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in another judgment

rendered in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur,

(2007) 9 SCC 571, wherein it has been laid down that the

claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a

particular year cannot be decided in the light of the

subsequent scheme that came into force much after the

claim.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court applying the principle laid down

in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur (supra) has

considered the factual aspect in Canara Bank and Anr. v.

M. Mahesh Kumar (supra), wherein the fact leading to the

said case was that the father of the dependent died on

10.10.1998 while he was serving as a Clerk in the bank and

- 12 -

the dependent had applied timely for compassionate

appointment as per the "Dying in Harness Scheme" dated

08.05.1993 which was in force at that time. The bank

rejected the dependent‟s claim on 30.06.1999 recording that

there are no indigent circumstances for providing

employment to the dependent. Again on 07.11.2001, the

bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of

the dependent‟s employment. In the light of the principles

laid down in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. v.

Jaspal Kaur (supra) the cause of action to be considered for

compassionate appointment arose when circular no.154 of

1993 dated 08.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the

judgment referred in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal

Kaur (supra), the claim cannot be decided as per 2005

scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The circular dated

14.02.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot

have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued

to the respondent as per circular of 1993.

11. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Commissioner of Public

Instructions and Others v. K. R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7

SCC 206, after taking into consideration its various

judgments, reiterated that the appointment to the public

service can only be made on the touchstone of Article 14 or

16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an

- 13 -

exception to general constitutional mandate in the interest of

justice under peculiar circumstances.

As has been settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the

judgments referred hereinabove that the appointment on

compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right

since it is exception of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

of India and further, the appointment on compassionate

ground is to be provided on the basis of the condition

stipulated in the scheme.

12. So far as the fact of the given case is concerned, the

death of the husband of the writ petitioner occurred on

04.12.2010. At that time, the scheme dated 09.04.2008 was

in vogue. The said fact is not in dispute. The learned Single

Judge has also come to the conclusive finding about the

applicability of the scheme dated 09.04.2008 in case of the

writ petitioner.

13. This Court, on perusal of the scheme dated 09.04.2008,

has found that there is no provision to provide appointment

on compassionate ground, rather the scheme for

disbursement of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of

appointment on compassionate ground is there.

As has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Canara

Bank and Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) that the

scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the

employee concerned will be applicable so far as appointment

- 14 -

on compassionate ground is concerned.

Since in the scheme dated 09.04.2008 there is no

provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground,

therefore, there is no question to provide appointment on

compassionate ground in absence of provision under the

scheme. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is correct in not

passing any direction for appointment on compassionate

ground.

14. According to our considered view, the intra-court appeal

being L.P.A. No. 756 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the

issue of compassionate appointment has been raised, lacks

merit.

Accordingly, the aforesaid appeal, being L.P.A. No. 756

of 2019, stands dismissed.

15. So far as L.P.A. No. 704 of 2019 which is for

disbursement of ex-gratia amount is concerned, admittedly,

the scheme dated 09.04.2008 has been held to be applicable

in the case of the writ petitioner by the learned Single Judge

which has not been disputed by either of the parties. The

aforesaid scheme provides conditions to hold the dependent

of the deceased employee entitled for ex-gratia amount on the

basis of the following conditions :-

(3) To whom the scheme will be applicable :

(i) Employee dying in harness (other than due to injury while performing official duty)

(ii) Employee dying due to injury sustained while

- 15 -

performing official duty within or outside office premises (excluding travel from residence to place of work and back).

(iii) Employee dying while performing official duty within or outside the office premises (excluding travel from residence to place of work and back) due to dacoity/robbery/terrorist attack.

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

(7) Ex-gratia may be granted to the family of the employee/employee who has retired on medical ground due to incapacitation, in the manner and subject to the ceilings specified below, if the monthly income of the family from all sources is less than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of taxes) of the employee.

        Calculation of monthly income
(I)     Terminal Benefits
        (i)     Provident Fund
        (ii)    Gratuity
        (iii)   Leave Encashment
        (iv)    Any other amount paid under Bank‟s Scheme(s)_____
                                              Sub-Total (A) ______
(II)    Liabilities

Loans taken from bank and/or other financial Institutions with the prior approval of the Bank _____ Sub-Total (B) ______ (III) Net corpus of terminal benefits (C=A-B) ____________ (IV) Investments Deposits NSCs PPF LIC policies Others ___________ Sub-Total (D) _________ (V) Details of movable property, if any, held and Monthly Income derived therefrom (VI) Details of immovable property, if any, held and Monthly Income therefrom (VII) Monthly income of the family from all sources:-

(i) Monthly interest at the Bank‟s maximum term Deposit rate on the net corpus of terminal benefit (C)

(ii) Monthly income from investments

(iii) Monthly income from movable and immovable property

(iv) Monthly income of dependent family members

- 16 -

(v) Any other income of the family ___________ Total monthly income of the family ___________

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court since has laid down about the

applicability of the scheme and the entitlement to be based

upon the terms and conditions stipulated therein, therefore,

if any scheme has been formulated containing therein the

conditions to hold the dependents of the deceased employee

entitle for disbursement of the amount of lump sum

compensation, there cannot be any deviation from such

terms and conditions for holding the dependent of the

deceased employee entitled for lump sum compensation.

However, the learned Single Judge was also of the view

that the scheme dated 09.04.2008 is applicable in the facts

and circumstances of the case, more particularly, taking into

consideration the date of death of the employee but even then

the learned Single Judge has come to a finding holding

therein that such condition cannot be said to be proper

wherein the terminal benefit has been considered to be a

major factor for holding the dependent of the deceased

employee entitled for lump sum compensation.

The question is that once the learned Single Judge has

come to the conclusion about applicability of the scheme

dated 09.04.2008, in the facts of the given case which

contains a condition for holding the dependent of the

deceased employee entitled for lump sum compensation, then

- 17 -

where is the question to go beyond the terms and conditions

stipulated in the aforesaid scheme dated 09.04.2008, which

has been done by the learned Single Judge while recording

the finding that the denial of the claim of lump sum

compensation on the basis of disbursement of terminal

benefit cannot be said to be justified when the terms and

conditions of the scheme dated 09.04.2008 has never been

questioned by the party aggrieved (the deceased), therefore,

the same will be held to be applicable and in that view of the

matter, the decision was required to be taken by the Bank for

deciding the entitlement of the dependent of the deceased

employee for lump sum compensation.

Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single

Judge holding the decision of the Bank rejecting the claim of

the writ petitioner on the basis of amount disbursed by way

of terminal benefit to be incorrect, which, according to our

considered view, is incorrect finding, being contrary to the

scheme dated 09.04.2008.

As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge

to the effect of quashing the order 01.02.2011 and holding

the writ petitioner entitled for ex-gratia amount giving a go-

bye to the calculation of the terminal benefit is hereby

quashed and set aside.

17. The order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as it

relates to quashing of the order dated 31.08.2015 is

- 18 -

concerned, the gross error has been committed in quashing

the said order, reason being that the writ petitioner after

rejection of her claim vide order dated 01.02.2011 which was

based upon the consideration of scheme dated 09.04.2008,

has again agitated the same issue after coming into effect of

new scheme which has come on 08.04.2015, but the same

has been rejected vide order dated 31.08.2015, which has

also been quashed taking the ground of calculating it on the

basis of disbursement of terminal benefit.

The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the

fact that the claim which was rejected on 01.02.2011 was

based upon the scheme dated 09.04.2008 which will only be

said to be applicable in the facts of the given case, taking into

consideration, the date of death of the deceased employee,

which is 04.12.2010, but applying the subsequent scheme

which has come on 08.04.2015, cannot be made applicable

with retrospective effect and that is the reason if the decision

has been taken by the Bank by rejecting the claim again vide

order dated 31.08.2015, the same ought not to have been

interfered with by the learned Single Judge, but having done

so, the said part of the order also suffers from gross error.

18. Before parting with the judgment, this Court deems it fit

and proper to consider the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble

Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Nitin [2022 Live

Law SC 690]. By putting reliance upon the same, Mr. Indrajit

- 19 -

Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 in

L.P.A. No.704 of 2019, has submitted that the Provident Fund

cannot be said to be the part of calculation to assess the

financial viability of the dependent of the bereaved family.

He further contended that in the judgment rendered by

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini

Kumar Taneja [(2004) 7 SCC 265], it has been held that the

Provident Fund cannot be taken into consideration in

entirety, rather part of the contribution of the employer can

only be taken into consideration if the reference of the same

as has been made by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Punjab National

Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (Supra), wherein it has

been referred that under the P.F. head the

employee‟s/employer‟s contribution which suggests that the

Provident Fund is only required to be considered either of the

employee‟s contribution or the employer‟s contribution and

not both. For ready reference, the paragraph-9 of the said

judgment is quoted and referred hereunder :-

9. One other thing which needs to be considered is whether the retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment. The High Court was of the view that the same was not to be taken into consideration. The view is contrary to what has been held recently in G.M. (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary [(2004) 7 SCC 271] . It was categorically held that the amounts have to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, there was a scheme called "Scheme for Employment of

- 20 -

the Dependants of the Employees Who Die While in the Service of the Bank -- Service on Compassionate Grounds" (in short "the Scheme") operating in Appellant 1 Bank which categorically provides as follows:

"Financial condition of the family

The dependants of an employee dying in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment provided the family is without sufficient means of livelihood, specifically keeping in view the following:

(a) Family pension.

(b) Gratuity amount received.

(c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to PF.

(d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund.

(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee.

(f) Income of family from other sources.

(g) Employment of other family members.

(h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc. It is most respectfully submitted that the Board of Directors of the petitioner Bank had approved the abovesaid Scheme, which was based upon the guidelines circulated by Indian Banks' Association to all the public sector banks which in turn are based upon the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]. The Scheme after approval was circulated vide PDCL 6/97 read with PDCL 11/99 dated 17-4-1999."

19. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph that the

dependents of an employee died in harness may be

considered for compassionate appointment provided the

family is without sufficient means of livelihood, specifically

keeping in view the following:

- 21 -

(a) Family pension.

(b) Gratuity amount received.

(c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to PF.

(d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund.

(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee.

(f) Income of family from other sources.

(g) Employment of other family members.

(h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc.

20. But, in the given case the appellant Central Bank has

formulated a scheme on 09.04.2008 wherein for calculation of

monthly income under the head "Terminal Benefit", the

Provident Fund has been inserted which means that the

Provident Fund in entirety and not to be considered on the

basis of the contribution either of the employer or the

employees.

21. The position of law is well settled that when the

Appellant Central Bank has formulated a scheme on

09.04.2008 which contains the basis of calculation of

monthly income including there the Provident Fund under the

Terminal Benefit, the same will have the binding effect, since

under the said Scheme only the relief either of appointment

on compassionate ground or ex-gratia compensation is being

sought for.

22. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

- 22 -

Respondent No.1, has relied upon the judgment rendered in

Central Bank of India v. Nitin (Supra), wherein also the

Hon‟ble Apex Court has come to the considered view that

ignoring the financial criteria for compassionate appointment

under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme will be an

error and accordingly, it has been held that the High Court

patently erred in ignoring the financial criteria for

appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme.

23. Therefore, according to our considered view, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the judgment rendered by

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Nitin

(Supra) also supports the case of the appellant Central Bank

of India.

24. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being L.P.A. No. 704 of

2019, stands allowed.

In consequence thereof, the writ petition stands

dismissed.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) I agree

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Birendra/ A.F.R.