Karnataka High Court

Smt.Padmavathi vs Karnataka Gramin Bank on 5 September, 2023

Bench: N S Gowda

                                       -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:31937
                                                WP No. 22758 of 2021




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                     BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 22758 OF 2021 (S-RES)


            BETWEEN:

            1.     SMT.PADMAVATHI,
                   W/O LATE S.CHANDASHEKHARACHARYA,
                   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                   WARD No.9, HOUSE No.357
                   MUTHYALAPETE,
                   MULUBAGALU TOWN, MULUBAGALU,
                   KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.

            2.     MRS.SREEMATHI.S.G.
                   W/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY.S.
                   AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                   SHAMALA NILAYA,
                   8TH CROSS, C.K.PURA, KELAGOTE,
                   CHITRADURGA TALUK,
Digitally
signed by          CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
PANKAJA S
Location:
HIGH        3.     SMT.VENKATARATHNAMMA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          W/O LATE C.VENATESHAPPA,
                   AGED ABUT 49 YEARS,
                   HDUKULA VILLAGE AT POST,
                   BANGARAPET,
                   KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.

            4.     SRI.BALAJI.B.S,
                   S/O LATE S.CHANDRASHEKHARACHARI,
                   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
                   WARD No.9, HOUSE No.357
                   MUTHYALAPETE,
                   MULUBAGALU TOWN, MULUBAGALU,
                            -2-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:31937
                                    WP No. 22758 of 2021




       KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.

5.     SRI.BHAGAVAN S.H.
       S/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY.S.,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       SHAMALA NILAYA,
       8TH CROSS, C.K.PURA, KELAGOTE,
       CHITRADURGA TALUK,
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.

6.     PRAVEEN KUMAR.V
       S/O LATE C.VENKATESHAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
       HUDUKULA VILLAGE AT POST,
       BANGARAPET,
       KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
                                        ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK,
       REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
       No.32 SANGANKAL ROAD,
       GANDHI NAGAR,
       BELLARI-583 103.

2.     GENERAL MANAGER,
       KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK,
       No.32, SANGANKAL ROAD,
       GANDHI NAGAR,
       BELLARI-583 103.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

    THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE
ORDERS ANNEXURE-F, G AND H, ETC.
                             -3-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:31937
                                       WP No. 22758 of 2021




     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS    ON   08.08.2023, COMING  ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING

                          ORDER

1. Petitioner No.1 is the widow, while Petitioner No. 4 is

the son of Late S.Chandrashekharachari, who died on

14.04.2016.

2. Petitioner No.2 is the widow, while Petitioner No. 5 is

the son of Late S.Hanumantha Reddy, who died on

23.12.2016.

3. Petitioner No.3 is the the widow, while Petitioner No.

6 is the son of Late C.Venkateshappa, who died on

18.09.2016.

4. S.Chandrashekharachari, S.Hanumantha Reddy and

C.Venkateshappa were the employees of respondent

No.1--Karnataka Gramin Bank (herein after referred to as,

"the Bank") and all of them died while they were in

service.

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their

claim for being appointed on compassionate grounds.

6. The petitioners had submitted applications seeking

appointment on Compassionate Grounds.

7. In 2006, the Bank had rolled out a Scheme for

payment of ex gratia (lumpsum amount) in lieu of

appointment on compassionate grounds pertaining to

Regional Rural Banks, which came into force on

19.10.2006. This Scheme was meant to ensure assistance

to those employees who died while in harness and

according to the Scheme, the Bank would pay a lumpsum

amount as ex gratia in lieu of appointment on

Compassionate Grounds.

8. On 10.01.2009, the Bank came up with a revised

Model Scheme. Under this Scheme, an appointment on

Compassionate Grounds was permissible only if the

employee had died within five years of his first

appointment or before the age of reaching thirty years,

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

whichever was later. This Scheme envisaged the

application for employment to be received by the Bank

within twelve months from the date of death of the

employee and it was also stated that the penury and want

of any means of livelihood would be the basis for offering

employment. This Scheme came into existence,

retrospectively, from 31.07.2004.

9. On 11.12.2013, a Model Scheme for payment of ex

gratia in lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds

or Appointment of Dependents of the Deceased Employee

on Compassionate Ground in Exceptional Cases

(hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Scheme", for

brevity) was formulated by the Bank. The Exceptional

cases envisaged under the 2013 Scheme were: an

employee dying while performing his official duty as a

result of violence, terrorist attack, robbery or dacoity; or

employee dying within five years of his first appointment

or before reaching the age of thirty years, whichever was

later.

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

10. The salient feature of the said Scheme was that it

was applicable to those employees who died while

performing the official duty or who died due to the injuries

sustained while performing the official duty either within or

outside the office premises (excluding travel from their

residence to their place of work and back).

11. It was also applicable to the employees who died

while performing the official duty within or outside the

office premises (excluding travel from the residence to

their place of work and back) due to Dacoity or robbery or

terrorist attack and also in respect of the employees who

prematurely retire due to incapacitation and before

reaching the age of fifty-five years.

12. Obviously, since the husbands of petitioner Nos.1 to

3 herein died in the year 2016, the Scheme of the year

2013 was applicable to them.

13. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 had made a request under 2013

Scheme, but the same were rejected on 09.08.2016,

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

06.01.2017 and 06.03.2017 respectively, on the ground

that there was no Scheme prevailing in the Bank for

appointment on Compassionate Grounds and the Bank

only had a scheme for payment of Ex Gratia payment.

14. It is the contention of the respondents that since the

petitioners did not come within the purview of the two

exceptional cases envisaged under the 2013 Scheme, their

claims were rejected.

15. On 14.02.2019, the Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank

formulated a revised scheme viz., Revised Model Scheme

for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds (herein after

referred to as 'the 2019 Scheme', for brevity).

16. However, the 2019 Scheme, which was formulated

on 14.02.2019 and adopted by the respondent--Karnataka

Gramin Bank on 06.02.2019, applied to cases in which an

employee had died while in service (including the death by

suicide) and the case of an employee who retired on

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the

age of fifty-five years.

17. This Model Scheme was approved and adopted by

respondent No.1/Karnataka Gramin Bank with effect from

06.02.2019. The Bank issued a Circular dated 24.04.2019

in this regard and it also stated that the Scheme would be

applicable in cases where the death of staff members

occurred on or after 06.02.2019.

18. The earlier existing "Model Scheme for Payment of

Ex gratia in lieu of Appointment on Compassionate

Grounds" was also to continue. The applicants had to

choose one of these two options as applicable to them.

19. The 2019 Scheme has also repealed the "Model

Scheme of Appointment of Dependents of the Deceased

Employee on Compassionate Grounds in Exceptional

circumstances" viz., the 2013 Scheme, which had been

formulated on 11.12.2013.

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

20. The 2013 Scheme, which contemplated offering

appointment on Compassionate Grounds only under the

prescribed exceptional cases, was done away with under

the 2019 Scheme and the right of the dependent to seek

consideration for appointment on Compassionate Grounds

became available in respect of an employee who died in

any manner, while in service.

21. The petitioners filed fresh applications under the

2019 Scheme but the same were rejected on the ground

that the revised 2019 Scheme was effective from

06.02.2019 and the same could not, therefore, be made

applicable to the dependants of employees who had

passed away prior to 2019 i.e., during 2016.

22. It was also informed to them that petitioner Nos.3 to

6, being the sons of the deceased employees, did not fall

within the Scheme prevailing in the Bank and they were

entitled to payment of ex gratia in lieu of appointment on

compassionate grounds.

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

23. The petitioners, thereafter, approached this Court by

filing W.P. Nos.22105 of 2019, 28341 of 2019 and 50885

of 2019 and this Court, by orders dated 24.03.2021,

31.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 respectively, directed the

Bank to consider the case of the petitioners afresh and

pass appropriate orders.

24. The Bank, in terms of the said order, reconsidered

the applications of the petitioners, and once again, came

to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled for

being considered for appointment on compassionate

grounds.

25. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their applications,

the present writ petition has been filed.

26. As could be noticed from the impugned orders, the

Bank fundamentally rejected the claim of the petitioners

on the ground that they were not entitled for appointment

on Compassionate Grounds either under the 2013 Scheme

which, according to the Bank, was subsisting and that they

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

were also not entitled for an appointment under the 2019

Scheme since that become applicable only after

06.02.2019.

27. The 2013 Scheme, no doubt, permitted appointment

on Compassionate Grounds on the two aforementioned

exceptional cases and admittedly, these two exceptional

cases would not be attracted in the cases of petitioners

herein.

28. Per contra, it is the case of the Bank that since this

Scheme was made applicable from 06.02.2019, it would

only be applied in respect of those employees who died on

or after 06.02.2019.

29. Though the Scheme did state that it became

applicable from 06.02.2019, it nevertheless brought within

its fold the applications by the dependants of an employee,

who had died five years prior to the coming into force of

the Scheme. This is clear from the time limit that is

stipulated in the revised Scheme, which reads as follows:

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

"8. TIME LIMIT FOR CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS

8.1 Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case.

8.2        However,       Bank           can         consider
      request            for             compassionate
      appointment even when the death

or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. While considering such belated requests it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the employee in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

circumspection. The decision to make appointment on Compassionate Grounds in such cases may, therefore, be taken only at the Board level."

(emphasis supplied)

30. If the Scheme permitted applications to be made

seeking employment on compassionate grounds from

eligible dependent members for a period of five years from

the date of death or retirement, it obviously brought within

its fold the employees who had died five years prior to

06.02.2019.

31. If it was the intention of the Scheme to not make it

applicable with effect from 06.02.2019, permitting an

application to be made by dependents in respect of the

death of the employee which had occurred within five

years, the objective of the Scheme would be rendered

meaningless. The very purpose of Clause (8.1) to the 2019

Scheme is to ensure that a dependent of a deceased

employee is entitled to make an application within five

years from the date of death of the employee.

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

32. An argument was advanced that this would only

mean that the applications could be received within five

years, if the death occurred on or after 06.02.2019.

33. Having regard to the fact that the Bank already had

a Scheme in the year 2013 itself, which provided for

appointment to be offered in exceptional cases, it is clear

that the objective of providing appointment on

Compassionate Grounds was already prevalent to the Bank

employees and it was only revised and widened in its

application by the Scheme of the year 2019.

34. If a beneficial Scheme has been formulated, under

which a period of five years from the date of death is

granted to the dependents to make an application, the

application of this time limit would have to be extended

even in respect of those deaths which occurred five years

prior to the initiation of this Scheme and the same has

also been reiterated in paragraph 8 of the impugned

Circular.

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

35. In other words, in respect of the deaths which

occurred five years prior to 06.02.2019, the dependents

became entitled to seek appointment under the revised

2019 Scheme.

36. The matter could also be looked at another angle in

the present case.

37. The requests of the petitioners were, no doubt,

rejected since they did not come within the purview of the

2013 Scheme, which provided for offering employment to

the dependents only under two exceptional circumstances.

If this Scheme was modified and was made applicable

retrospectively i.e., in respect of the deaths of employees

who had died five years prior to the formulation of the

Scheme in 2019, the petitioners became entitled afresh for

seeking appointment under the revised 2019 Scheme

notwithstanding the fact that their requests for

appointment on Compassionate Grounds under 2013

Scheme were not tenable.

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

38. It has to be borne in mind that the Scheme is one in

which the employment is offered on Compassionate

Grounds and this is basically to ensure that the family of

the deceased is given relief to get over the crisis created

by the death of the employee and to ensure a continuity in

the lives of the dependents of such an employee.

39. In this regard, the judgment rendered by the High

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of

Smt.Gigna Devi1 would also have some relevance, since

it has been held that the revised Compassionate Grounds

Model Scheme of 2019 would also be applicable in respect

of the death of employees which occurred five years prior

to the implementation of the 2019 Scheme.

40. Having regard to the scope of the Scheme, it is but

necessary to hold that notwithstanding the fact that the

Scheme came into force on 06.02.2019, it would be

applicable in respect of those employees who died within

Smt. Gigna Devi v. Union of India, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.955 of 2018.

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

the period of five years prior to the effective date of the

Scheme.

41. Since the husbands of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 who had

died during the year 2016 i.e., within three years prior to

the formulation of 2019 Scheme, they would be entitled to

make an application under this Scheme and the Bank

would be bound to consider the same in accordance with

2019 Scheme.

42. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are

quashed and the Bank is directed to consider the case of

the petitioners under the revised Model Scheme for

Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, which has come

into force from 06.02.2019 and has been adopted by the

Bank on 24.04.2019.

43. The Bank shall take into consideration only the

eligibility of the sons of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 (i.e.,

petitioners 4 to 6) under the 2019 Scheme and if they are

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

found eligible, it shall offer them an appointment, as

provided under the 2019 Scheme.

44. Reliance placed by the Bank on the decision rendered

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramila2 is

misconceived, since the very decision in effect supports

the case of the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

has stated as follows:

" 17. ....................Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee, which could have been considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank and another vs. M.Mahesh Kumar - (2015) 7 SCC 412. It is not for the Courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review, as has been recently emphasized by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Parkash Chand - (2019) 4 SCC 285."

(emphasis supplied)

Indian Bank and Others v. Pramila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729.

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC:31937 WP No. 22758 of 2021

45. It is, therefore, clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has also held that if there was a scheme available, it would

have to be adopted. Since, in the instant case, the 2019

Scheme is applicable, the petitioners would be entitled for

consideration of their right to secure an employment on

Compassionate Grounds as stipulated under the 2019

Scheme.

46. It may also to be pertinent to state here that this

Court, in W.P. No. 22758 of 2021 has held that the Union

Government had approved the Model Scheme of 2019 and

the Scheme so approved did not contain an applicable

date from which the Scheme was to come into force, and

in this regard, the Banks could not insert an applicable

date.

47. In this regard, the petitioners have also challenged

Paragraph 3 of the Circular dated 24.04.2019, insofar as

the effective date of the Scheme being prescribed as

06.02.2019.

- 20 -