Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sheela Devi @Veshno Devi vs The Chairmen Raj Gramin Bank & on 20 October, 2016
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7416/2008)
SheelaDevi @ Veshno Devi widow of Shri Amarsingh Sharma aged about 39
years resident of G-28, Surya Nagar, Diwakri, Alwar (Rajasthan).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman, Rajasthan Gramin Bank, 13, Kailash Tower Scheme No. 2,
Alwar (Rajasthan).
2. Senior Manager, Human Resources Dept., Rajasthan Gramin Bank, 13, Kailash
Tower Scheme No. 2, Alwar (Rajasthan).
3. Branch Manager, Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Branch Alwar, Rajasthan Gramin
Bank, 13, Kailash Tower Scheme No. 2, Alwar (Rajasthan).
...Non-petitioners
Date of Order: October 20, 2016.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Prakash Thakuria, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, for the respondent.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner seeks compassionate appointment in the Rajasthan Gramin Bank (hereinafter `the Bank') on the ground of the death on 12-10-2007 of her husband Amar Singh Sharma, a Class-IV employee of the Bank while in saddle. It has been submitted that following the death of her husband, the petitioner moved an application on 6-11-2007 for such appointment before the Chairman of the Bank to no avail despite repeated representations. It 2 has been submitted that the petitioner has in the alternative also seeks exgratia payment for her husband's death while in employment of the respondent bank under a scheme now current. Even that has been arbitrarily denied vide letter dated 30-5-2008 under the hand of the Senior Manager, HR Department of the Bank informing her that she was not eligible for the exgratia payment. Hence this petition.
Reply to petition has been filed by the respondent Bank. It has been submitted that following the death of Amar Singh Sharma while in service of the bank terminal benefits and dues towards Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. aggregating to 3,26,852/- have been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner aside of receipt of the aforesaid amount is getting a pension of Rs.3076/- per month. In the aforesaid context it has been submitted that the economic condition of the petitioner is not in the doldrums. It has been submitted that as per directions of the Government of India the scheme of compassionate appointments in the bank has been abolished effective 30-8-2006, i.e. prior to the death of the husband of the petitioner on 12-10- 2007. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner for grant of exgratia payment under the current scheme for the benefit of dependents of employees die while in service was considered and it was found that she was not entitled thereto. This was so because it 3 was found that the petitioner had a monthly income more than 60% of the gross salary last drawn by the employee. The scheme for payment of exgratia payment operates only for a family of the employee of the bank dying while in service if the family has a monthly income of less than 60% of the amount of the gross salary of the deceased employee at the time of his death. It was submitted that the petitioner had received Rs.3,26,852/- on her husband's death towards various heads from the respondent bank. Reckoning for earning 8% p.a. interest thereon, the petitioner can get Rs.2,179/- per month as interest, aside of the monthly pension Rs.3073/-, which aggregates to Rs.5,255/- as against the monthly salary of the petitioner's husband Amar Singh Sharma at the time of his death which was Rs.6,726/-. The amount of Rs.5,255/- per month is more than 60% of the last drawn salary of the petitioner's husband. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the exgratia amount under the scheme.
Heard. Considered.
The petitioner's husband admittedly died on 12-10-2007. On the said date there was no scheme in currency for compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee. The scheme of exgratia payment was however effective, albeit subject to the condition of the income of the family of deceased being less than 60% of the gross salary of the deceased employee at the time of his 4 death. In the petitioner's case it has been found that the monthly income of the petitioner constituted of interest and family pension aggregates to Rs.5,255/- per month. The said amount works out to be in excess of 60% of gross salary of the deceased employee which at the time of his death was Rs.6,726/- per month. As such the petitioner is not entitled to exgratia payment. A similar view has been taken by a coordinate bench of this court in the cases of Gaurav Kumar Saini Vs. Raj. Gramin Bank, SBCWP No.64/2007 decided on 19-7-2011, Jitendra Singh Vs. Rajasthan Gramin Bank, SBCWP No.9686/2008 decided on 14-9-2011 and Anuradha Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Gramin Bank, SBCWP No.7567/2008 decided on 24-8-2011.
There is thus no illegality in the decision taken by the respondent bank in denying both compassionate appointment and exgratia payment to the petitioner despite her husband's death while working as a class IV servant of the respondent bank.
There is no force in the writ petition. Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 5 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.