Patna High Court
Central Bank Of India Through Its ... vs Urmila Devi on 24 July, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Anil Kumar Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.649 of 2017
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15532 of 2013
Along With
Interlocutory Application No.2547 of 2017
===========================================================
1. The Central Bank Of India through its Chairman, Head Office, Central Bank Of
India, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021.
2. The General Manager, HRD, Head Office, Central Bank Of India, Chander
Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021.
3. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank Of India, Block- B, Maurya
Lok Complex, Dak Banglow Road, Patna- 800001.
4. The Senior Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank Of India, Shanti Bhawan,
Rameshwar Path, Opp. Biser Tank, Gaya- 823001.
5. The Branch Manager, Harnaut Branch, Central Bank Of India, Harnaut,
Nalanda.
.... .... Respondents-Appellant/s
Versus
Urmila Devi, Wife Of Late Ram Kishun Paswan, Resident Of Village Bishunpur,
Police Station Ben, District Nalanda
.... .... Petitioner- Respondent/s
With
===========================================================
Letters Patent Appeal No. 650 of 2017
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15617 of 2013
Along with
Interlocutory Application No.2545 of 2017
===========================================================
1. The Central Bank Of India through its Chairman, Head Office, Central Bank Of
India, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021.
2. The General Manager, HRD, Head Office, Central Bank Of India, Chander
Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021.
3. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank Of India, Block- B, Maurya
Lok Complex, Dak Banglow Road, Patna- 800001.
4. The Senior Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank Of India, Shanti Bhawan,
Rameshwar Path, Opp. Biser Tank, Gaya- 823001.
5. The Branch Manager, Harnaut Branch, Central Bank Of India, Harnaut,
Nalanda.
.... .... Respondents- Appellant/s
Versus
Rita Kumari, Wife of Late Manoj Singh, Resident of Dak Bunglow Road, Post
Office- Dak Bunglow Road, Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner- Respondent/s
With
===========================================================
Patna High Court LPA No.649 of 2017 dt.24-07-2017
2/8
Letters Patent Appeal No. 651 of 2017
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15709 of 2013
Along with
Interlocutory Application No.2543 of 2017
===========================================================
1. The Central Bank Of India through its Chairman, Head Office, Central Bank Of
India, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021
2. The General Manager, HRD, Head Office, Central Bank Of India, Chander
Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021
3. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank Of India, Block- B, Maurya
Lok Complex, Dak Banglow Road, Patna- 800001
4. The Senior Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank Of India, Shanti Bhawan,
Rameshwar Path, Opp. Biser Tank, Gaya- 823001
5. The Branch Manager, Harnaut Branch, Central Bank Of India, Harnaut,
Nalanda
.... .... Respondents-Appellant/s
Versus
Meena Devi, Wife of Late Naresh Ram, Resident of Village- Sirchanpur, Post
Office and Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner-Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date: 24-07-2017
The delay in filing of these Appeals is condoned.
Interlocutory Applications for condonation of delay stand
allowed and disposed of.
As common question of law and facts are involved in all these
three appeals filed by the Bank in question, we propose to deal with the
issue and decide the same by a common order.
Respondents herein, namely Smt. Urmila Devi, Smt. Rita
Patna High Court LPA No.649 of 2017 dt.24-07-2017
3/8
Kumari, and Meena Devi are the dependants and widows of late Ram
Kishun Paswan, late Manoj Singh and late Naresh Ram, respectively, who
were all working with the Central Bank of India. On 4th of October, 2012,
all the three employees had gone to Nawadah Branch of the Bank for the
purpose of remitting Rs. 35,00,000/- to Harnaut Branch and it is stated that
they were going on duty in an Ambassador Car provided by the Bank
when the car was stopped in the National Highway and a robbery took
place. It is stated that the robbery took place by forcing the car to stop by
colliding it with the truck and thereafter when the public gathered in the
place and commotion was created, the miscreants ran away. The police of
Nawadah Police Station registered Muffasil P.S. Case No.147 of 2012 for
offences punishable under Section 279/304A and 427 of the Indian Penal
Code and on account of the sudden death of the family members, the
applications were filed by each of the respondent seeking compassionate
appointment and even though the Regional Office of the Bank
recommended for compassionate appointment, the Head office rejected the
same which resulted in filing of the writ petitions in question individually
by the three respondents and the learned Writ Court on 22.04.2016 having
allowed the writ petitions in part and having directed the Bank to consider
the case of the petitioners in accordance to the Scheme of 2007 as well as
Scheme of 2014, these three appeals by the Bank primarily on the ground
that employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment. They are
Patna High Court LPA No.649 of 2017 dt.24-07-2017
4/8
only entitled only ex-gratia payment under the scheme of 2007 and the
Scheme of 2014 does not apply in their cases and, therefore, the learned
Writ Court has committed an error in directing for consideration of their
cases under the Scheme of 2014.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we
have also gone through the detailed order passed by the learned Writ
Court. A short question that arises for consideration is as to under what
Scheme the case of the employees would fall. There are two schemes
applicable; they are Scheme of 2007 and Scheme of 2014. The Scheme of
2007 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. There was an amendment to the
original Scheme which was incorporated and in the Circular dated 19th
July, 2007 taking note of the demand raised by the employees Association,
certain amendments were made in the Scheme which only provided for
payment of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment. By amending
the Scheme, two clauses were added in which case treating them to be
exceptional it was indicated that compassionate appointment shall be
granted. The two clauses which are clause (a) and (b) read as under:-
(a) dies while performing his official duty as a result of
violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or
(b) dies within five years of his first appointment or before
he reaches the age of 30 years, whichever is later,
leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children.
Thereafter, the new Scheme for compassionate appointment
Patna High Court LPA No.649 of 2017 dt.24-07-2017
5/8
came into force with effect from 05.08.2014 which is annexure-7 at page
56 of the writ petition and this Scheme which was brought into force with
effect from 05.08.2014 contemplates a provision for considering the claim
for compassionate appointment prescribing a time limit in Clause 8 and
Clause 8.1. and 8.2. of the said Scheme read as under:-
"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."
It was the case of the Bank before the Writ Court that as the
death of the employees was on account of a road accident, it was not a case
of death while performing official duty as a result of violence, terrorism,
Patna High Court LPA No.649 of 2017 dt.24-07-2017
6/8
robbery or dacoity, the cases do not fall under Clause (a) of the amendment
to 2007 Scheme brought into force with effect from 19th July, 2007.
We find the aforesaid submission on behalf of the Bank to be
correct for the simple reason that the only available document with regard
to the manner in which the death took place is the FIR lodged by the
Branch Manager of the Bank, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which goes
to show that the death occurred, even though on official duty, but due to a
road accident, i.e. collusion of a truck with the car in which the employees
were travelling, and there being no material available on record to show
that the death was a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity. We
agree with the contention of the Bank that the cases are not covered under
Clause (a). However, in case of the petitioner Smt. Urmila Devi in Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15532 of 2013 and respondent in Letters Patent
Appeal No.649 of 2017, her husband was appointed on 10.12.2007 and as
he died within five years of his first appointment and before he reached the
age of 30 years, his case is covered by clause (b) of Scheme 2007 and,
therefore, in directing for considering the case of respondent Smt. Urmila
Devi under clause (b) of the Scheme, 2007, we find no error in the order
passed by the learned Writ Court.
As far as all three employees were concerned, even if their
cases do not fall under Clause (a) of the Scheme, 2007, we find that their
cases would fall under Clause 8.1. of the Scheme of 2014, as the incident
Patna High Court LPA No.649 of 2017 dt.24-07-2017
7/8
in question took place on 04.10.2012 and their cases of employment under
the Scheme has to be considered up to five years from the date of death or
retirement on medical ground etc. It is the contention of the Bank before us
and Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Bank,
vehemently argued that the Scheme in question of the year 2014 has come
into force with effect from 05.08.2014 and, therefore, only if the accident
occurs after 05.08.2014, then their cases can be considered five years from
the date of coming into force of the Scheme. If such a contention is
accepted, then clause 8.1. would be redundant. It would not cover any case
where death occurred prior to 05.08.2014. It would only apply in cases
where death occurs five years after 05.08.2014. This could never be the
intention of the formulator of the Scheme. The clause 8.1. of the Scheme
of 2014, in our view, was introduced for granting benefit of compassionate
appointment in such cases where death occurred within five years from
the date of coming into force of the Scheme of 2014 and not after
05.08.2014. The learned Writ Court has also considered this aspect of the matter and has directed for considering the case of the employees under these clauses and we see no error in the same warranting reconsideration. In our considered view, the purpose of incorporating clause 8.1. in the Scheme of 2014 would only be for giving benefit of compassionate appointment in cases where death occurs five years prior to coming into force of the Scheme and if the contention advanced by the Bank is Patna High Court LPA No.649 of 2017 dt.24-07-2017 8/8 accepted, we are of the considered view that Clause 8.1. of the Scheme of 2014 need not be incorporated in the manner it has been done. Accordingly, finding no merit, we dismiss the appeals.
The respondents are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners- respondents herein in the following manner:-
The case of Smt. Urmila Devi shall be considered under clause
(b) of the Scheme of 2007 and clause 8.1. of the Scheme of 2014 and the cases of Rita Kumari and Meena Devi shall be considered under Clause 8.1. of the Scheme of 2014.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Sunil/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.07.2017 Transmission Date