Madhya Pradesh High Court
Canara Bank vs Smt Sudha Sital on 9 May, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar, Satyendra Kumar Singh
:1: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 09th OF MAY, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 604 of 2020
Between:-
1. CANARA BANK, MANAGER MUKHYA KAYALAYA 112, J.C. ROAD
BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
2. THE ADDL. MANAGER, CANARA BANK, HRM DEPARTMENT,
PARYAWAS BHAWAN III BLOCK, 5th FLOOR, JAIL ROAD, ARERA
HILLS, BHOPAL,MADHYA PRADESH.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, SCHEME NO.54, VIJAY
NAGAR, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH.
....APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3
(RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)
(BY SHRI R.C. SINHAL, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SMT.SUDHA SITAL, W/O LATE SHRI RAMESH SITAL,
HOUSEWORK, 27/3, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ALOK SITAL, S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH SITAL, PRIVATE SECTOR,
27/3, VIJAY NAGAR,INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHWETA SITAL, D/O LATE SHRI RAMESH SITAL, 27/3, VIJAY
NAGAR,INDORE(MADYA PRADESH)
....RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3
(PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3)
(BY SMT. JYOTI MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Subodh Abhyankar passed the following:
:2: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors)
JUDGMENT
This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants/Canara Bank against the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1276/2017.
02. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondents filed the aforesaid writ petition assailing the order dated 1.6.2009, passed by the appellant No.1/Bank denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the son of respondent No.1/petitioner No.1. The petition was also filed against the order dated 1.8.2012 whereby the payment of lump-sum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment has also been declined by the appellant-Bank. The employee of the Bank in the present case died on 14.12.2007 after a brief illness.
03. Shri R.C. Singal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Bank has submitted that the learned Judge of the writ court has erred in not properly appreciating the new policy for the compassionate appointment and has erred in not considering the financial condition of the petitiners. Counsel has further submitted that vide Circular No.143/2015 dated 20.3.2015 the petitioner/ Bank introduced a new scheme for compassionate appointment which came into force w.e.f. 05.8.2014 and regarding ex-gratia payment, it was provided that the Bank shall have option to give compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lump-sum payment, but in both the cases, the conditions stipulated for compassionate appointment will be applicable.
:3: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors)
04. Counsel for the petitioner/Bank has also drawn attention of this Court to Clause 9.2 of the aforesaid circular and has also referred to the new scheme for compassionate appointment introduced vide Annexure A/6, which covers :-
(a) only to wholly dependent member of the family,
(b) also to the cases where death of employee has occurred prior to 05.08.2014 but subject to explanation that, at the time of employee's death there was emergent need for compassionate appointment so as to relieve the family from financial distress,
(c) the scheme disqualifies those cases where family of deceased employee could manage somehow in all these years and,
(d) formal of application has also been prescribed for use of the applicants.
05. Counsel has further submitted that admittedly, the respondent No.2 was an earning member and not wholly dependent upon the the respondent's family and the family itself had been receiving a monthly income of Rs.12,982/- including monthly family pension of Rs.8,267/- and thus, it does not qualify to be considered in this new scheme as the family is not in penury.
06. In support of his submissions, Counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 and General Manager Vs. Kunti Tiwari reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 in para 9.
07. Thus, it is submitted that the findings given by the learned :4: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors) Single Judge to grant exgratia amount to the respondents/petitioners with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of death of the deceased employee Ramesh Sital till its actual payment cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that there was no occasion to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant-bank as it was a seriously contested matter and not merely a deliberate denial of a rightful claim.
08. Smt. Jyoti Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the learned Judge of the Writ Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the respondents/petitioners were hardly maintaining themselves as the respondent No.1/Smt. Sudha Sital is the wife of the deceased employee; whereas the respondent No.2/Alok Sital is his minor son and admittedly he is in a private job of sundry in nature and has no fixed and permanent income. So far as the respondent No.3 Shweta Sital is concerned, it is submitted that although she was a girl having 70% disability and was totally dependent upon the income received by the family however, she has died during the Corona period.
09. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
10. So far as the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Writ Court is concerned, the relevant paragraphs of the order read as under:-
:5: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors)
12. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank has decided to consider the application for compassionate appointment in certain exceptional cases where (i) the employee dying while performing his duties, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; (ii) employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years;
and (iii) the scheme shall come into force with retrospective effect from 31.7.2004 and all cases of death occurring after 31.7.2004. So far as a scheme for payment of the exgratia amount is concerned, Canara Bank has adopted the same terms and conditions of the scheme formulated by the Bank communicated vide circular No.35/2005 dated 14.2.2005. Clause B of the said scheme is reproduced below :
"B. SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF LUMPSUM EXGRATIA AMOUNT IN LIEU OF APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS - SCHEME IN BRIEF In respect of the Scheme for payment of lumpsum exgratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, advised now, the terms & conditions of the Scheme formulated by the Bank and communicated, vide HO Circular No.35/2005 date 14.02.2005, stands unchanged. However, the eligibility criteria suggested by IBA for dealing with the cases under the Scheme for payment of the lumpsum exgratia amount is as follows :
(i) Employee dying in harness (other than due to injury sustained while performing of the duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity);
(ii) Employee dying due to injury sustained while performing official duty within or outside the office premises (other than due to violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and excluding travel from residence to place of work and back);
:6: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors)
(iii) Employee seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years."
It is clear from the aforesaid that the criteria for grant of lump-sum exgratia are altogether different from the criteria for grant of compassionate appointment. Therefore, the contention of Shri Sinhal, learned counsel appearing for respondents/Bank is unsustainable that the payment of the exgratia amount is not liable to be given because the petitioners are not eligible for compassionate appointment. As per aforesaid Clause B, the criteria for grant of the lump sum exgratia amount is altogether different and the same is liable to be considered independently. Hence, the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of lump sum exgratia payment. Since petitioner No.3 who is the daughter of the deceased employee and suffering from 70% disablement has no source of income, therefore, the family dependents are entitled to exgratia payment.
13. So far the claim of petitioner no.2 for compassionate appointment is concerned the respondents have come up with the new scheme for compassionate appointment w.e.f. 20.3.2015. According to the respondents, this scheme does not apply to the petitioners because deceased employee - Ramesh Sital died on 14.12.2007. Certainly, the application for compassionate appointment is liable to be considered under policy available on the date of death of employee/officer as per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank V/s. M. Mahesh Kumar : (2015) 7 SCC 412. At the time of death of Ramesh Sital, no policy for grant of compassionate appointment was there and only the policy for grant of lumpsum exgratia was in vogue in the bank. But in this new scheme for compassionate appointment, there is a time limit for consideration of the application and as per Clause 9.1, the application for employment under the scheme from eligible dependent will normally :7: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors) be considered up to five years from the date of death.
As per Clause 9.2, the Bank can consider the request for a compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. Thus, the right of consideration of application has been kept open and made it applicable for those cases where employee/s died long back, even 5 years ago. However, the decision to make an appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases shall be taken only at the Board level.
14. The present case is having exceptional circumstances because the daughter of the deceased employee is suffering 70% disablement and dependent on petitioner No.1 who is not having any independent income except the family pension, which is not sufficient. Petitioner No.2, is in a private job , which is not permanent. Therefore, in this special circumstance, under the new scheme, the case of the petitioner no.2 is liable to be considered for compassionate appointment. If the respondents consider and decide to grant the compassionate appointment, then certainly the petitioners shall not be entitled to lumpsum exgratia payment. If the respondent Bank rejects the claim of petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment, then lumpsum exgratia amount be paid to the petitioner No.1. Since the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners without assigning any reason and the reasons given in the return are unsustanable, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of lumpsum exgratia from the date of death of deceased employee -Ramesh Sital till its actual payment.
15. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000 (in words:Ten Thousand only)"
11. A perusal of the aforesaid discussion clearly reveals that this :8: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors) Court has taken note of Clause B of the Scheme issued by Circular No. 35/2005 dated 14.2.2005, and the new scheme for compassionate appointment came into force w.e.f. 20.3.2015 for the purposes of ex-gratia payments and compassionate appointment respectively. This Court has come to a conclusion that for payment of the exgratia, the eligibility criteria to be different and hence the Court has held that the criteria is different from the criteria for appointment on compassionate grounds. So far as the findings regarding the compassionate appointment, the Court has considered that the new scheme for compassionate appointment w.e.f.20.3.2015 and as per Clause 9.1, the application for employment under the Scheme form eligible dependent will normally be considered up to five years from the date of death. As per Clause 9.2 of the Bank can consider the request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. Clause 9.1 and 9.2 reads as under:-
"9.1 Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent will 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.
9.2 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 shall, 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 :9: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors) distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years shall 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 shall, therefore, be taken only at the Board level. "
12. Thus, this Court has considered the financial aspects of the petitioners viz., the 70% of the disability of petitioner No.3 the daughter of the petitioner No.1 respondent No.1, who is not having any independent family except family pension, which is not sufficient and the petitioner No.2 was in a private job, which is not permanent. Thus, this Court has held that these circumstances would entitle the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate and ex-gratia payment. The aforesaid finding, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be faulted with.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid submissions cannot be accepted in the light of the factual scenario as described by the learned Judge of Writ Court. This Court has also noted that the daughter of the petitioner No.1/respondent No.1 the respondent No.3 Shweta Sital has already died and prior to that she has also suffering 70% of the disability. The documents regarding which have already been placed on record and the income of the petitioners/respondents' family is said to be Rs.10,982/-only which amount, in the considered opinion of this court was a meagre amount. In such circumstances, it is difficult to perceive as to how a woman having two children one of which, was disabled would :10: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors) have survive. The decision cited by the counsel in the case of General Manager vs. Kunti Tiwary and Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in Laws (SC)1994 512 are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, since the Bank was contesting the matter on merits, it cannot be said that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bank to deliberately deny the benefit under the new Scheme of compassionate appointment/exgratia payment to the petitioners/respondents. In such circumstances, although the appellant-bank has not been able to make out any case on merits but the cost imposed upon the appellant does not appear to be warranted.
14. Resultantly, the petition stands partly allowed, and while the impugned order dated 16.03.2020 is hereby upheld, but the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon the appellant is here by set aside. Accordingly, the petition stands partly allowed.
(Subodh Abhyankar ) (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
JUDGE JUDGE
moni
Digitally signed by MONI RAJU
Date: 2022.05.11 12:44:23 +05'30'
:11: W.A.No.604 of 2020 (Canara Bank & ors vs. Smt. Sudha Sital & ors)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
AT INDORE
Writ Appeal No.604 of 2020
(Canara Bank and others vs. Smt. Sudha Sital and others) Indore, Dated: 25 /03/2022 Shri R.C. Sinhal, learned counsel for the appellants. Ms. Jyoti Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard.
Reserved for judgment.
(Subodh Abhayankar) (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge Judge
Indore, Dated: 09/05/2022
Judgment delivered, signed and dated.
(Subodh Abhayankar) (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge Judge
moni