SPA/524/2017
2025 Latest Caselaw 322 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/524/2017 on 13 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                                                      2025:UHC:3562-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
SL.   Dat    or proceedings
                                                                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.    e    or directions and
            Registrar's order
            with Signatures


                                SPA No. 524 of 2017
                                Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Judgment:(per Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Neha and Ms. Monika Pant, Advocates for the appellants.

2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Objection has been filed to the Delay Condonation Application. For the reasons indicated in the Delay Condonation Application, we allow the Delay Condonation Application.

4. This intra-Court Appeal has been filed by Central Bank of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.04.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2416 of 2015. By the said judgment, Writ Petition filed by the respondent, challenging denial of ex-gratia benefit, which is payable in lieu of compassionate appointment, was allowed. The impugned judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"Petitioner sought ex gratia relief after the death of her husband. The same has been denied to her as per communication dated 31.08.2015. The respondent-Central Bank of India has framed the Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lump Sum Amount in Lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds.

The Court has gone through the said Scheme. Prima Facie, the respondent-Bank has not taken into consideration the formula provided for in Clause No. 7 of the Scheme.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.08.2015 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to re- determine the ex gratia relief strictly as per Clause 7 of the Scheme within ten weeks from today.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly."

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-Bank submits that Clause 7 of the Scheme, introduced by the Bank on 16.06.2006, is not applicable in case of death of an employee, as the said Clause deals only with cases where an employee retires on medical grounds due to incapacitation.

6. We find substance in the said submission. As the husband of writ petitioner (respondent herein) died while in service, and her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 05.04.2005, therefore, Clause 7 of the Scheme does not help the writ petitioner (respondent herein).

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-Bank further submits that 2025:UHC:3562-DB since the claim of the writ-petitioner (respondent herein) for compassionate appointment was rejected before the Scheme for ex-gratia relief was introduced, therefore, the direction to consider her claim under the said Scheme is unsustainable. The said submission is bereft of merit, as the Scheme nowhere provides that it will not apply to cases where the request for compassionate appointment has been rejected. He further submits that intention of the Scheme can be gathered from the preamble to the Scheme, where it is mentioned that the Scheme has been framed to help the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis brought by premature death of an employee, in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground. However, the preamble do not support this contention made by learned Senior Advocate.

8. What we could gather from the last sentence of the preamble is that the Competent Authority in the Bank can consider grant of ex-gratia amount to dependents of a deceased employee, whose request for compassionate appointment has been turned down. Thus, it makes no difference as to whether rejection of request for compassionate appointment is before or after enforcement of the Scheme.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we modify the impugned judgment and direct the Competent Authority in the Bank to reconsider the claim of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) for ex-gratia benefit as per the Scheme introduced on 16.06.2006, and pass necessary order within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. If the writ petitioner (respondent herein) is found entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, the amount found payable shall be released to her within two months of passing of the final order.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) SHIKSHA 13.05.2025 Shiksha

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

BINJOLA serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD 9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.05.14 17:43:02 +05'30'