Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Gigna Devi And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 November, 2022
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955/2018
1. Smt. Gigna Devi W/o Late Shri Het Ram Gayna, Village
and Post Malwada, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.
2. Mukesh S/o Late Shri Het Ram Gayna, Village and Post
Malwada, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Finance,
Government of India New Dehli.
2. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Joint Venture of Govt.
of India, Govt. of Rajasthan and SBBJ throu, Personnel
and Human Resources Development, Head Office Tulsi
Tower, 9th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
3. Branch Manager, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank,
Branch Malwada, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Ojha
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 28/11/2022 The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2 who is the son of the deceased employee.
The facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 who was Class-IV employee with the respondent bank expired on 02.11.2014 while in service. Soon after the death of the employee, an application was moved by petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased employee on 25.11.2014 to the respondent bank with a prayer for compassionate (Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 10:30:58 PM) (2 of 6) [CW-955/2018] appointment to her son. The application was not considered for a long time and ultimately vide communication dated 12.05.2017, it was informed that no scheme for compassionate appointment is in existence and the case of the petitioners would be considered as and when any such scheme is introduced. Aggrieved against the said communication, a legal notice was served on the respondent bank and in response to the same, vide communication dated 30.10.2017, it was informed by the bank that Ex-gratia scheme is applicable for the bank employees and therefore, the petitioners can apply for the same. Aggrieved against the said communication and the non consideration of the application of the petitioner No.1, the present writ petition has been filed.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the year 2014 the compassionate appointment scheme was framed by the Indian Bank Association and was forwarded to the Central Government for sanction which received sanction of the Government on 07.08.2014 and in pursuance to the same, the scheme was made applicable for all the banks with effect from 05.08.2014.
Learned counsel submitted that the said scheme is applicable on all the banks including the respondent bank i.e. the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank. Counsel submitted that the scheme of 2014 specifically provides for compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employee and the petitioner No.2 falling within the said criteria, deserves to be granted compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Urmila Devi; Letters Patent Appeal No.649/2017, decided on 24.07.2017. (Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 10:30:58 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-955/2018] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the scheme of 2014 was not applicable on the respondent bank as the same was never adopted by it. He submitted that the scheme for compassionate appointment was adopted by the respondent bank only in the year 2019 and was made applicable w.e.f. 15.03.2019. Counsel submitted that the said scheme of 2019 would not be applicable in the present case as the employee expired in the year 2014 and the policy applicable for the petitioners would be the policy of 2006 only i.e. the Ex.-gratia policy. Learned counsel relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi; Civil Appeal No.6903/2021, decided on 18.11.2021.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the record shows that soon after the death of the employee, vide communication dated 10.11.2014, the Manager of the respondent bank was directed by the higher authorities to inform the legal representatives of the deceased employee about the benefits/facilities which can be availed by them. The said communication specifically mentioned about the compassionate appointment and not of any Ex-gratia policy. However, it seems that no action in pursuance to the communication dated 10.11.2014 was taken by the Manager of the concerned bank and the application of the petitioner No.1 remained pending for consideration. It was only in the year 2017 that the petitioners were for the first time informed that no scheme for compassionate appointment is in existence and only the scheme for Ex-gratia compensation is in effect from 06.10.2006. The scheme of the year 2019 which has been (Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 10:30:58 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-955/2018] admitted to be adopted by the respondent bank provides for a provision for compassionate appointment. Clause 8 of the Revised Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank reads as under: -
"TIME LIMIT FOR CONSIDERING
APPLICATIONS
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."
A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that the same provides for consideration of the eligible dependents for compassionate appointment normally upto five years from the date of death but can consider the cases even where death took place more than five years ago. The present one is a specific case where the application for compassionate appointment was moved in the year 2014 and the same was not even considered for a long period of three years. It is only in the year 2017 that the bank (Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 10:30:58 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-955/2018] took a stand that there is no scheme for compassionate appointment which governs the respondent bank. Soon after the said communication, the present writ petition has been preferred and meanwhile, admittedly the policy of 2019 has been adopted by the respondent bank which specifically provides for consideration of cases wherein the death of an employee occurred five years ago or even prior to that. So far as the case of Ashish Awasthi (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it was a case wherein there was no dispute regarding the existence of any scheme for compassionate appointment. The dispute therein was as to the date of applicability of the policy and as to which policy would apply. The present case can be differentiated from the said matter as in the present matter there is no dispute regarding the applicability of the policy. Moreover, in Ashish Awasthi's case (supra) there was no clause similar to that of Clause 8 in the present scheme.
In the present matter, the scheme applicable to the respondent bank itself specifically provides for consideration of cases wherein the death had occurred more than five years ago. The same naturally has been incorporated with an intention to give it a retrospective effect. The death of the employee took place in the year 2014, the application for compassionate appointment was filed in the same year, i.e., 2014 and the policy/scheme was adopted by the Bank in the year 2019. Therefore, the application for compassionate appointment filed by petitioner No.1 in the year 2014 definitely falls within the purview of Clause 8 of the Scheme as the death had occurred five years ago from the year of adoption of the policy.
(Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 10:30:58 PM)
(6 of 6) [CW-955/2018] In view of the above observations, this Court is of the specific opinion that the application of petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment deserves to be considered in light of Clause 8 of the scheme of 2019.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent bank to consider the application of petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment specifically in terms of Clause 8 of the Scheme of 2019 and if on consideration, the petitioner No.2 is otherwise found entitled, he be granted compassionate appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 131-Dharmendra/ Sachin/-
(Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 10:30:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)