Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Kahar vs State Bank Of India on 2 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA
PRADESH : JABALPUR
Case No. W.P. No.4817/2018
Parties Name Manoj Kumar Kahar
Vs.
State Bank of India
Date of order 02.12.2021
Bench Constituted Justice Vivek Agarwal
Order passed by Justice Vivek Agarwal
Whether approved for reporting No
Name of counsel for parties Shri N.P. Choudhary, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel
for the respondent.
Law laid down --
Significant paragraph numbers --
ORDER
(02.12.2021)
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
quashing of order dated 25.04.2014 informing the
petitioner that his request for payment of ex-gratia on
death of his father late Suresh Chandra Kahar, Assistant
Manager has been rejected by the Local Head Office.
2. Petitioner's contention is that petitioner's father
late Shri Suresh Chandra Kahar was employed as
Assistant Manager in State Bank of India. He died on
11.12.1999. Thereafter, petitioner lost his mother Smt.
Revti Bai on 24.05.2001. Earlier, petitioner had filed
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
W.P. No.6288/2006 seeking compassionate
appointment on the post of 'Clerk' in accordance to his
eligibility prescribed in the Bank which was decided
vide order dated 23.06.2008. He claimed that he is
entitled to grant of compassionate appointment but that
prayer of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
23.06.2008 and thereafter petitioner had preferred a
Writ Appeal No.368/2009 which too was dismissed
holding that the Division Bench did not commit any
illegality while dismissing the writ petition. SLP too
was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2011.
3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
vide order dated 07.07.2009 when a writ appeal was
dismissed, Division Bench of this Court in para 9
observed that since scheme for compassionate
appointment has been replaced with that of ex-gratia
lump sum amount then even otherwise it will be very
difficult for us to direct that the petitioner be given
compassionate appointment. It is submitted that in
view of these observations made by the Division
Bench, petitioner had moved an application for
payment of ex-gratia lump sum vide his application
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
dated 07.11.2013, as is contained in Annexure P-6 but
that application was rejected vide order dated
20.03.2014 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, petitioner
made further representations but they too have not
yielded any results, hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment of High Court of Judicature at
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad passed in W.P.
No.12352/2018 (Mr. Nitin s/o Yohan Arawade Vs.
Cetral Bank of India) wherein Division Bench of
Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petition
and held that the petitioner therein is eligible for
compassionate appointment and directed the Bank to
consider claim of the petitioner as per the seniority of
filing of the application for compassionate
appointment.
5. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal
Limited & Ors. Vs. Ruda Devi & Ors passed in SLP
(Civil) Diary No.8963/2020 wherein the order of
learned Single Judge of the High Court granting benefit
of compassionate appointment upon murder of his
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
father applying presumption arising out of the
provisions contained in Section 108 of the evidence
Act, 1872 has been upheld.
6. Petitioner has also placed reliance on the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mgb
Gramin Bank vs Chakrawarti Singh (2014)13 SCC
583 and submits that in that case Supreme Court
placing reliance on its earlier decision in case of State
Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC
661 directed the respondent to apply for consideration
of his case under the new scheme and further directed
the appellant to consider his case strictly in accordance
with clause 14 of the said new scheme within a period
of three months from the date of receiving of
application.
7. Shri Ashish Shroti,learned counsel for the
respondent, in his turn, submits that admittedly father
of the petitioner died on 11.12.1999 living behind
petitioner as one of his legal heirs. It is submitted that
the family was paid the retiral dues and family pension
as per law.
8. On 11.03.2000, petitioner had moved an
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
application for grant of compassionate appointment
which was rejected on 11.12.2000 after taking into
consideration a fact that family of deceased employee
was not in penurious condition.
9. Writ Petition No.6288/2006 was filed by the
petitioner which was dismissed by the High Court vide
order dated 23.06.2008 observing therein that the law
laid down in case of Akeel Ahmed Khan Vs. State of
India, C.A. No.2410/2005 dated 18.10.2005 is no more
a good law in the light of the subsequent order passed
by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7003/2005
(State Bank of India Vs. Vikas Dubey and Others)
wherein the Supreme Court observed that "we are also
not prepared to follow the order given in C.A.
No.2410/2004 (SBI and another Vs. Akeel Ahmed
Akhtar). We have clarified that order subsequently on
18.10.2002, in which it is recorded that the appellant
had not followed any principle in granting relief to the
heirs of Mr. Javed Akhtar. We are of the view that the
scheme as propounded by the appellant should have
been followed in making appointment on
compassionate ground and it is not open to the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
appellant to deviate there from". It is further submitted
that once High Court has observed that family is not in
a penurious condition so to warrant appointment on
compassionate grounds then that order was maintained
even in the writ appeal which was dismissed vide order
dated 07.07.2009 and thereafter SLP too was dismissed
vide order dated 25.04.2011, therefore, petitioner is not
entitled to grant of compassionate appointment.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount
in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds in
State Bank of India came into force w.e.f. 05.08.2005.
In terms of this policy, eligibility clause provides that
ex-gratia relief in lieu of compassionate appointment
under the scheme is not an entitlement but may be
granted at the sole discretion of the Bank in deserving
and eligible cases of death in harness and
incapacitation leading to premature retirement before
55 years of age, where dependents of such employees
are left in penury and without any means of livelihood
and unless some immediate financial succour is
provided a family could not be able to tide over the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
financial crisis caused by the sudden deprivation of the
income of the deceased employee. It is submitted that
since this contingency is not existing in case of the
petitioner and his prayer for grant of compassionate
appointment already stood rejected as there was no
penury, petitioner is not entitled to grant of
compassionate appointment.
11. It is further submitted that the judgment rendered
in case of Mgb Gramin Bank (supra) is of no help to
the petitioner inasmuch as only those applications
which were pending under compassionate appointment
scheme were to be dealt with in accordance with the
new scheme for payment of ex-gratia and not the once
which were already decided.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
going through the record, it is evident from the
chronology of the events, petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment was rejected in the year
2000 itself.
13. This issue has been concluded up to the level
Supreme Court.
14. As per clause 14 of the scheme for grant of
compassionate appointment as has been referred to by
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
the Supreme Court in case of Mgb Gramin Bank
(supra) in para 14, it is evident that only those cases
were to be considered for grant of ex-gratia in lieu of
compassionate appointment where applications for
grant of compassionate appointment were pending as
on the date on which new scheme is approved by the
Board. Admittedly, petitioner's case for grant of
compassionate appointment was not pending on the
date of coming into effect of the scheme for payment of
ex-gratia
15. As far as law laid down in the case of Mr. Nitin
s/o Yohan Arawade (Supra) is concerned there is a
distinctive element namely upon father of Mr. Nitin
being declared as incapacitated on account of accident,
he was given VRS and a promise was handed over to
Mr. Nitin that in case he resigns from his existing job at
ICICI Bank then he will be given compassionate
appointment in the Central Bank, therefore, in view of
that promise, Bombay High Court has passed an order
and directed the respondent Bank to process
application for grant of compassionate appointment to
be given to the petitioner therein.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
16. Similarly, in case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited
& Ors (supra), facts are different it involves two
issues, firstly; in regard to invocation of provisions
contained in Section 108 of the Evidence Act and
secondly; grant of compassionate appointment within a
preview of clause 9.4.2 of the National Coal Wage
Agreement (III). Therefore, when there is no such pari
materia clause in the scheme for grant of ex-gratia
ratio of this judgment is not available.
17. As far as, scheme for payment of ex-gratia is
concerned in its background itself, it is mentioned that
the Supreme Court in its judgment Umesh Kumar
Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. JT 1994 (3)
SC, 525 has held that appointment in the public
services should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. Keeping this
judgment of the Supreme Court in mind and also the
difficulties being faced, scheme for payment of ex-
gratia was brought into effect with an objective that
under the changed scenario where state of the art
technology is used and online banking and other new
technology based services are invoked, number of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
manual interventions becoming redundant leading to
need for less work force, therefore, with a view to bring
about a balance between the business objectives of
Bank and its concern towards the family of employees
dying in harness scheme of payment of ex-gratia lump
sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate
grounds was introduced.
18. Thus, it is evident that the scheme for payment
of ex-gratia is in lieu of compassionate appointment
and is available to only those families where a
dependent is found to be eligible for grant of
compassionate appointment but due to deduction in
work force such appointment is not possible. Thus,
scheme of ex-gratia is not available in addition to
compassionate appointment i.e. it is not available to
those whose cases for grant of compassionate
appointment were scrutinized on the touchstone of
level of penury, rejected, then those persons cannot
claim ex-gratia after rejection of their application for
grant of compassionate appointment.
19. Thus, when tested in terms of para 14 of the
scheme and also on the aforesaid aspect, I am of the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
opinion that the impugned decision of respondent Bank
in not extending benefit of payment of ex-gratia cannot
be faulted with inasmuch as payment of ex-gratia is in
lieu of compassionate appointment and is not available
to those whose case for grant of compassionate
appointment on its own merit has been rejected and
upheld up to the highest Court.
20. Thus petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Tabish
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2021.12.07 18:47:48 IST
