Jharkhand High Court
Kaushalya Devi vs State Bank Of India Through Its ... on 1 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 107 of 2021
Kaushalya Devi, aged about 64 years, widow of Late Ramadhar Ram,
resident of Satbarwa, P.O. & P.S. Satbarwa, District-Palamau
... ... ... ... Petitioner /Appellant
Versus
1. State Bank of India through its Chief General Manager, Patna
Zone, West Gandhi Maidan, Behind B.N. College, J.C. Road, P.O.
& P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna (Bihar)
2. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office
at Court Compound, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District-
Palamau ... ... Respondents/Respondents
---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
For the Bank: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
---------
06/Dated: 01.05.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
I.A. No. 1774 of 2021
1. In this application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, the appellant has prayed for condoning the delay of about two
months in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. However, the office has given a note that there is a delay of 288
days in preferring the appeal.
3. The impugned order was passed on 07.12.2020 and the appeal
was presented on 17.03.2021. However, the Office has pointed out
that as the appeal memo did not contain certified copy of the
impugned order the limitation shall continue to run.
4. While preparing such report, the office because of inadvertence
did not consider the impact of the directives, passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in suo motu W.P. (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, wherein, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that during the COVID period,
the limitation shall remain arrested.
5. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is
delay of less than two months in preferring the appeal and since the
appellant is a widow and this is second journey to this Court, we are
inclined to condone the delay in preferring the appeal.
6. I.A. No. 1774 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly.
L.P.A. No. 107 of 2021
1. By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner in W.P. (S)
No. 1284 of 2019 has assailed the order passed on 07.12.2020 by the
learned Single Judge, rejecting her petition for issuance of an
appropriate writ against the Bank i.e. the respondent for payment of
ex-gratia compensation on the death of her husband who died in
harness. The said writ petition, is, in fact, the second journey of the
petitioner to this Court. She approached this Court earlier by filing
W.P.(S) No. 6426 of 2008, which was taken up by the learned Single
Judge and was allowed in part in view of the fact that the order
impugned therein was not a speaking order. However, after disposal
of the said first writ application, the petitioner's case was reconsidered
by the Bank and again they have rejected the application of the
petitioner for grant of ex-gratia compensation on the event of death of
her husband.
2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The
petitioner's husband, namely, Late Ramadhar Ram was a permanent
employee of the Bank, discharging duties as the Messenger in
Satbarwa Branch of the district Palamau. He died in harness on
22.04.2001, leaving behind the petitioner as the only legal heir. It is
not disputed at this stage that the petitioner and her husband had no
children. At that time, the employee has already completed qualifying
service of 14 years. Thereafter, one Bimla Devi made an application
for appointment in the Bank claiming to be the second wife of the late
employee of the Bank and a power of attorney was executed by the
present petitioner in her favour for making such application. However,
the Bank rejected application of Bimla Devi holding that she is not
entitled to be appointed, being a second wife. Thereafter, the previous
Scheme seized to operate by virtue of a policy decision, taken by the
Board of Directors of the Bank and a new Scheme of payment of ex-
gratia compensation, in lieu of compassionate appointment, in case of
death of an employee in harness or permanent incapacitation was
passed. After coming into effect of the new Scheme dated 04.08.2005
the petitioner thereafter on 25.07.2006 filed application for the benefits
under the new Scheme. Her application was rejected. She preferred a
writ to this Court, which was allowed in part and the matter was
remitted to the bank for reconsideration and after reconsideration also,
the application was rejected. She approached this Court.
3. The learned Single Judge having taken into consideration the
reported case of MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014)
13 SCC 583, held that the Scheme that was in force at the time of
death of the employee in harness, shall be applicable and the
subsequent Scheme cannot be taken into consideration, for granting
any benefit of the dying in harness Rule. We are also in agreement
with the learned Single Judge and our stand is vindicated by the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian
Bank and others Vs. Promila and another, (2020) 2 SCC 729,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the compassionate
appointment is not alternative to the normal course of appointment
and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate
appointment. The objective of such compassionate rehabilitation
Scheme is only to provide solace and succor to the family in difficult
times and thus, relevancy at the stage of time, when the employee
passes away is of impotence. In that reported case, the respondent
had withdrawn the scheme as per the relevant norms and therefore,
they are not entitled to be given appointment on compassionate
ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in very clear terms laid down that
the claim of compassionate rehabilitation, in this case, the payment of
ex gratia to the widow of the deceased employee, must be decided
only and on the basis of relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of
demise of the employee. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner is
overage and she could not be appointed under the old Scheme.
4. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge requires no interference. Therefore, this Letters Patent
Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
5. There shall be no orders as to costs.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
7. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
N.A.F.R.
APK/VK
