Jharkhand High Court
Ravindra Baraik vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank Through Its ... on 23 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 2167 of 2021
---
Ravindra Baraik ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Gramin Bank through its Chairman, Doranda, Ranchi
2. General Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Doranda, Ranchi
3. General Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Simdega Region, Simdega
4. Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Kersai Branch, Simdega
5. Smt. Arti Devi ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate
For the Respondents-JRGB : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate
---
8/23.08.2023 Heard Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1
to 4 and Md. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 5.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction
upon the respondents to pay the death cum retiral benefits to the
petitioner including the family pension, gratuity, provident fund etc.
The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to grant him
compassionate appointment.
3. The father of the petitioner namely, Suresh Baraik was employed
as Office Attendant in the Jharkhand Gramin Bank who died in harness
on 13.01.2016. The deceased employee had left behind two sons namely
- Durga Baraik and Ravindra Baraik (petitioner) and one daughter Arti
Baraik (respondent no. 5). Subsequently the elder son of the deceased
employee had died on 02.02.2020. The petitioner had applied for
compassionate appointment and was asked to provide succession
certificate pursuant to which he preferred Succession Case No. 1 of 2018
which was decreed on 05.07.2019, but in spite of the same, the death cum
retiral benefits has not been distributed amongst the legal heirs of the
deceased employee.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which an
affidavit of the respondent no. 5 has also been brought on record in
which she has categorically stated that if the entire death cum retiral
benefits is paid to the petitioner, she does not have any objection to the
same. Learned counsel also submits that as per the circular of the
Jharkhand Gramin Bank, the same would not applicable in the case of the
petitioner, moreso in view of the order passed by this court in L.P.A. No.
325 of 2020.
5. Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
nos. 1 to 4 submits that initially as per the order passed in succession
case, the death cum retiral benefits are to be distributed between the legal
heirs of the deceased employee and subsequently the elder brother of the
petitioner has himself died and therefore, the same could not be
disbursed. The other impediment which resulted in non-consideration of
the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner is the
objection raised by the respondent no. 5, but now since the respondent
no. 5 has revoked her objection which has been filed through a
supplementary affidavit, the respondent would appropriately consider
the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has basically reiterated
what has been stated in the affidavit dated 14.07.2023.
7. When the writ petition was filed, there was certain obstacles in the
claim of the petitioner of death cum retiral benefit as well as
compassionate appointment as there was an objection on behalf of the
respondent no. 5 which was the reason for the Jharkhand Gramin Bank
not to pursue the case of the petitioner and now the same has been
removed.
8. The scenario has changed in view of the subsequent stand of the
respondent no. 5 by virtue of which she has given 'No Objection', if the
entire death cum retiral benefits is extended to the petitioner.
9. Moreover, it appears from the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties that at the time of the death of
the father of the petitioner, there was no circular which would provide
compassionate appointment to the petitioner, but subsequently the same
had come to an end which was also considered in L.P.A. No. 325 of 2020
and following order was passed:
"9(ii) The law is well settled that if a thing has been decided to be
done, it is strictly to be done in accordance with the policy decision.
Here, the decision has been taken by the authority as would appear
from Clause 8.2 wherein the authority has been conferred with the
power to examine such cases so as to assess the financial means of
the family of the deceased employee in a case where the death took
place five years ago from the date of coming into effect the scheme
dated 18.03.2019. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Ors., AIR (1964) SC 358, wherein
it has been held at paragraph 8 as under:-
25. "....its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to
do an act and has laid down the method in which that power
has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the
act in any other manner than that which has been
prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were
not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been
enacted....
15. The matter is remitted before the competent authority, i.e., the
Board, to consider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner in the
light of the provision contained under Clause 8.2."
10. In view of the aforesaid therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
death cum retiral benefits as well as for consideration of the claim for
compassionate appointment and in view of the above findings, the
respondent no. 3 is directed to take an appropriate decision on the claim
of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
11. So far as the death cum retiral benefit is concerned, the same shall
also be extended to the petitioner in view of the 'No Objection' of the
respondent no. 5 within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
12. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned
observations and directions.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R Shekhar Cp 2
