Smt. Kalawati Chaudhary vs Union Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 5984 MP

                                       1




             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                           W.P.No.18402 of 2021
              (Smt.Kalawati Chaudhary Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.)

Jabalpur, Dated :24.09.2021


        Shri R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

        Challenge being made to the order dated 24.08.2021(Annexure P/8)

passed by the respondent no.1 whereby, the claim of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the

petitioner has received an ex gratia amount in lieu of the compassionate

appointment on 11.07.2014 therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the

same.

It is argued that the petitioner's husband Late Shri Saukhilal

Chaudhary was initially appointed in the respondent's Bank on

27.01.1986 and was lastly posted as Head Cashier-II cum Clerk to Christ

Jyoti School Branch Satna of Rewa Region. Unfortunately, he passed

away on 05.09.2013. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, she

has applied for obtaining the compassionate appointment to the

respondent department. It is alleged that respondent/Bank by fraud has

deposited the ex gratia amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in the account of the

petitioner on 11.07.2014. The petitioner has filed a representation before

the respondent no.3 pointing out the fact that the Bank Authorities have

taken her signature in a form on 10.02.2014 and in pursuance to the same

has deposited the amount in her account. She has approached the Bank for

consideration of her case of compassionate appointment of her son in lieu

of death of her husband. When no consideration was made, a writ petition

was preferred before this court in W.P.No.14885/2015 which was heard

and decided on 08.07.2021 and disposed of with the direction to the

competent authority to consider and decide the pending

representation/application for compassionate appointment within a period

of three months. In pursuance to the same the impugned order has been

passed by the authorities. It is argued that the authorities have failed to

consider the aspect that the petitioner was always ready to refund the

amount of ex gratia which has been deposited in her account by fraud. It

is submitted that she is still ready to refund the entire amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- but the application for compassionate appointment may be

considered.

It is argued that the authorities be directed to consider and decide

the pending representation of the petitioner for grant of compassionate

appointment and she will refund the entire amount within a short period

of time to the respondent/Bank.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the

judgment passed in cases of Nilesh Chadar Vs. The State of M.P. &

others passed in W.P.No.4159/2017 dated 10.11.2017 and Nilesh Chadar

Vs. The State of M.P. & Others passed in W.P.No.19952/2018 dated

04.03.2021, the case law which are relied upon by the petitioner are not

applicable in the present case is of no help to the petitioner.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

On perusal of the record, it is seen that in lieu of death of the

husband of the petitioner, the ex gratia amount, amounting to

Rs.7,00,000/- has already been paid to her on 11.07.2014. After receiving

the amount on 11.07.2014, there was no whisper by the petitioner for

seeking compassionate appointment. Petitioner could not point out the

fact that she has ever made any application to the respondent/Bank to

refund the ex gratia amount. However, Annexure P/5, a documents is

being filed to show that such an application was made on 11.07.2014 but

the application has no acknowledgment for the same therefore, same

cannot be considered. Even otherwise, petitioner has kept mum for

considerable period. The petitioner should have shown her bonafides for

refunding the amount of ex gratia then she was entitled to get the case

considered for compassionate appointment.

The husband of the petitioner has expired on 05.09.2013 and after a

lapse of considerable period, the claim of compassionate appointment

cannot be considered in lieu of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the

case of Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Parden Oraon (2021 SCC

Online SC 299) decided on 09.04.2021 wherein Supreme court has held

that "the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of

reasonable period. As a consideration of such an employee is not vested

right to ask for compassionate appointment which can be exercised at any

time in future. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the

family to get over the financial crises that is based at the time of death of

the sole breadwinner of the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed

or offered after the significant lapse of time, after the crisis is over." It is

a compassion shown by an employer to over come the sudden hardship

faced by the family members due to sudden demise of breadwinner of the

family.

In the present case, the petitioner's husband passed away in the

year, 2013. The ex gratia amount to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- has already

been paid to the petitioner to over come the financial crises that has been

faced by her due to the sole breadwinner of the family. After lapse of

considerable period, the case for grant of compassionate appointment can

not be considered specially, the fact that petitioner has made no efforts to

refund the ex gratia amount received by her.

In such circumstances, as the petitioner has already received the ex

gratia amount in lieu of death of her husband no relief as prayed for in the

writ petition can be extend to her. A detailed and a reasoned order has

been passed by the authorities while complying the earlier directions

given by this court in W.P.No. 14885/2015 order dated 08.07.2021.

In such circumstances, petition sans merits and is hereby

dismissed.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge

Sha

Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.09.25 13:42:18 +05'30'