Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh Pandey vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 25 September, 2019
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14578 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sarvesh Pandey Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,H.N. Singh Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anant Kumar Tiwari,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ganesh Shankar Srivastava for respondent nos. 4 & 5 and Sri Anant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the circular dated 23.05.2019 issued by the General Manager (Administration and I.T.) Purvanchal Bank Personnel Department Head Office, Gorakhpur. The ground to challenge the said circular is that the decision to implement the scheme of compassionate appointment in Purvanchal Gramin Bank w.e.f. the date of its adoption i.e. 15.03.2019, is highly discriminatory.
It is contended that the demand for grant of scheme of compassionate appointment was being raised by the Bank employees for a long time and it was finally accepted by the Central Government on 07.08.2014. The scheme for compassionate appointment or grant of ex gratia, in lieu of the same, had been implemented in all Public Sector Banks w.e.f. 05.08.2014.
Vide communication dated 31.12.2018, the Chief General Manager, NABARD was informed of the decision of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, for implementation of a scheme for compassionate appointment in Regional Rural Banks (RRBs). It was provided therein that the scheme approved by the Government of India for Public Sector Banks vide letter dated 07.08.2014, may be implemented in RRBs (Regional Rural Banks) also with the modification suggested by the NABARD. 'A Model scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds' in RRBs was notified on 09.12.2019 and a direction was given to the Board of Directors of RRBs for adoption of the same at the earliest. The said scheme was adopted by the Purvanchal Bank.
The impugned circular dated 23.05.2019 was issued by the Chief Manager, Purvanchal Bank on some clarifications sought from the NABARD in continuation of the Bank's circular dated 28.03.2019. It is stated therein that the Board of Directors of the Bank had decided to adopt the scheme w.e.f. 15.03.2019 and, thus, the scheme for compassionate appointment will be applicable only in case where employees dies on or after 15.03.2019.
The submission is that the 'Model scheme' framed by NABARD provides in Clause 8.1 that the application for employment from eligible dependant can be considered up to the period of five years from the date of death. The date of adoption of the scheme, therefore, could not be fixed as the date of application rather the application moved five years prior to its adoption have to be entertained. It is further contended that the same scheme has been implemented by Maharashtra Gramin Bank for its employees w.e.f. 05.08.2014 and coverage has been given to the dependants of the family members of a permanent employee of the said Bank who dies while in service on or after the effective date. The decision of the Purvanchal Bank to exclude the dependants of a deceased employee died prior to 15.03.2019, therefore, does not stand to reason. Moreover, with respect to Public Sector Banks also, the same scheme for compassionate appointment has been made effective from 05.08.2014. It is the same scheme which has been implemented on the approval of the Government of India with respect to the Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) without any major modification.
There was, therefore, no occasion for modification of the date of implementation of the original scheme being the date of its adoption.
As the scheme for compassionate appointment is a beneficiary legislation, liberal interpretation is to be given so as to implement it with retrospective effect. Providing a cut-off date to exclude the dependants of the deceased employees died five years before its enforcement, would render the Clause 8.1 of the scheme nugatory.
Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, submits that coverage can be given only to those dependants of the deceased employee, who dies after enforcement of the scheme. A cut-off date for implementation of the scheme cannot be challenged before the Writ Court as it is well within the jurisdiction of the administrative authorities to implement a policy with a definite date. Retrospective effect cannot be given to the scheme in terms of the clear language employed in clause 1.1 of the scheme, itself.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, a pointed query has been made by the Court as to the status of the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner placed the reminder dated 23.06.2018 sent by the mother of the petitioner praying for compassionate appointment of her son. It is contended therein that the application was moved by the petitioner's mother on 20.04.2015 for grant of compassionate appointment to her son. The Bank had offered ex gratia payment, which was denied by her pressing claim for compassionate appointment of her son. The contents of the aforesaid letter reads as under:-
"mijksDr ds lUnHkZ esa izkfFkZuh }kjk vius iq= losZ'k ik.Ms; S/o Lo0 lqjsUnz ik.Ms; dh fu;qfDr vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij djus gsrq ,d izkFkZuk i= fnuakd 20&04&2015 dks iz/kku dk;kZy; ij fn;k x;k Fkk ,oa dk;kZy; }kjk izsf"kr Ex-gratia dk Hkqxrku u ysdj fu;qfDr dks gh viuk izFke o vfUre fodYi pquk FkkA "
It is, thus, evident that admittedly, on receipt of the application of wife of the deceased employee, the Bank had offered her ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment.The said offer was turned down by the petitioner's mother insisting for grant of compassionate appointment. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, there was no scheme for compassionate appointment. It is also to be seen that even in the current scheme, the Bank has option either to grant compassionate appointment or to pay lump sum ex gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment. However, in each case, the option would be exercised only in case other conditions of compassionate appointment are made.
Considering the object of compassionate appointment which is to grant immediate financial relief to the dependants of the deceased employee and not to grant employment, the offer was given by the Bank for grant of ex gratia payment which was turned down by the petitioner's mother. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to turn around to claim compassionate appointment after a period of four years from the date of death of the employee.
In view of the said circumstances, all other questions raised in the present petition to challenge the decision of the Board for fixing a cut off date for implementation of the scheme for compassionate appointment, become academic and need not be considered at the instance of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 P Kesari