Smt. Gigna Devi And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 13922 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955/2018

1. Smt. Gigna Devi W/o Late Shri Het Ram Gayna, Village and Post Malwada, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

2. Mukesh S/o Late Shri Het Ram Gayna, Village and Post Malwada, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of India New Dehli.

2. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Joint Venture of Govt.

of India, Govt. of Rajasthan and SBBJ throu, Personnel and Human Resources Development, Head Office Tulsi Tower, 9th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

3. Branch Manager, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Branch Malwada, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. R.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Nitin Ojha



               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                      Order

28/11/2022

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for

grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2 who is the

son of the deceased employee.

The facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner No.1

and father of petitioner No.2 who was Class-IV employee with the

respondent bank expired on 02.11.2014 while in service. Soon

after the death of the employee, an application was moved by

petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased employee on 25.11.2014

to the respondent bank with a prayer for compassionate

(2 of 6) [CW-955/2018]

appointment to her son. The application was not considered for a

long time and ultimately vide communication dated 12.05.2017, it

was informed that no scheme for compassionate appointment is in

existence and the case of the petitioners would be considered as

and when any such scheme is introduced. Aggrieved against the

said communication, a legal notice was served on the respondent

bank and in response to the same, vide communication dated

30.10.2017, it was informed by the bank that Ex-gratia scheme is

applicable for the bank employees and therefore, the petitioners

can apply for the same. Aggrieved against the said communication

and the non consideration of the application of the petitioner No.1,

the present writ petition has been filed.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the

year 2014 the compassionate appointment scheme was framed by

the Indian Bank Association and was forwarded to the Central

Government for sanction which received sanction of the

Government on 07.08.2014 and in pursuance to the same, the

scheme was made applicable for all the banks with effect from

05.08.2014.

Learned counsel submitted that the said scheme is applicable

on all the banks including the respondent bank i.e. the Rajasthan

Marudhara Gramin Bank. Counsel submitted that the scheme of

2014 specifically provides for compassionate appointment to the

dependent of deceased employee and the petitioner No.2 falling

within the said criteria, deserves to be granted compassionate

appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court in the case of

Central Bank of India Vs. Urmila Devi; Letters Patent

Appeal No.649/2017, decided on 24.07.2017.

(3 of 6) [CW-955/2018]

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the scheme of 2014 was not applicable on the respondent

bank as the same was never adopted by it. He submitted that the

scheme for compassionate appointment was adopted by the

respondent bank only in the year 2019 and was made applicable

w.e.f. 15.03.2019. Counsel submitted that the said scheme of

2019 would not be applicable in the present case as the employee

expired in the year 2014 and the policy applicable for the

petitioners would be the policy of 2006 only i.e. the Ex.-gratia

policy. Learned counsel relied upon the Apex Court judgment in

the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashish

Awasthi; Civil Appeal No.6903/2021, decided on 18.11.2021.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

A perusal of the record shows that soon after the death of

the employee, vide communication dated 10.11.2014, the

Manager of the respondent bank was directed by the higher

authorities to inform the legal representatives of the deceased

employee about the benefits/facilities which can be availed by

them. The said communication specifically mentioned about the

compassionate appointment and not of any Ex-gratia policy.

However, it seems that no action in pursuance to the

communication dated 10.11.2014 was taken by the Manager of

the concerned bank and the application of the petitioner No.1

remained pending for consideration. It was only in the year 2017

that the petitioners were for the first time informed that no

scheme for compassionate appointment is in existence and only

the scheme for Ex-gratia compensation is in effect from

06.10.2006. The scheme of the year 2019 which has been

(4 of 6) [CW-955/2018]

admitted to be adopted by the respondent bank provides for a

provision for compassionate appointment. Clause 8 of the Revised

Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Rajasthan Marudhara

Gramin Bank reads as under: -

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

A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that the

same provides for consideration of the eligible dependents for

compassionate appointment normally upto five years from the

date of death but can consider the cases even where death took

place more than five years ago. The present one is a specific case

where the application for compassionate appointment was moved

in the year 2014 and the same was not even considered for a long

period of three years. It is only in the year 2017 that the bank

(5 of 6) [CW-955/2018]

took a stand that there is no scheme for compassionate

appointment which governs the respondent bank. Soon after the

said communication, the present writ petition has been preferred

and meanwhile, admittedly the policy of 2019 has been adopted

by the respondent bank which specifically provides for

consideration of cases wherein the death of an employee occurred

five years ago or even prior to that. So far as the case of Ashish

Awasthi (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the

respondents is concerned, it was a case wherein there was no

dispute regarding the existence of any scheme for compassionate

appointment. The dispute therein was as to the date of

applicability of the policy and as to which policy would apply. The

present case can be differentiated from the said matter as in the

present matter there is no dispute regarding the applicability of

the policy. Moreover, in Ashish Awasthi's case (supra) there was

no clause similar to that of Clause 8 in the present scheme.

In the present matter, the scheme applicable to the

respondent bank itself specifically provides for consideration of

cases wherein the death had occurred more than five years ago.

The same naturally has been incorporated with an intention to

give it a retrospective effect. The death of the employee took

place in the year 2014, the application for compassionate

appointment was filed in the same year, i.e., 2014 and the

policy/scheme was adopted by the Bank in the year 2019.

Therefore, the application for compassionate appointment filed by

petitioner No.1 in the year 2014 definitely falls within the purview

of Clause 8 of the Scheme as the death had occurred five years

ago from the year of adoption of the policy.

(6 of 6) [CW-955/2018]

In view of the above observations, this Court is of the

specific opinion that the application of petitioner No.1 for

compassionate appointment deserves to be considered in light of

Clause 8 of the scheme of 2019.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondent bank to consider the application of

petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment specifically in

terms of Clause 8 of the Scheme of 2019 and if on consideration,

the petitioner No.2 is otherwise found entitled, he be granted

compassionate appointment within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of the present order.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 131-Dharmendra/ Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)