Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Mr. Mukherjee has relied on a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated July 26, 2021 in W.P. No. 7249 of 2012 (Smt. Meena Dhaigude vs. Maha Pravandhak State Bank of India), which may have a persuasive value for the proposition that an employee who went missing and did not join duty for months together, would be considered as a case of dying in harness for family.

10. On the basis of argument as noted above, Mr. Mukherjee has insisted that the writ petition may be allowed and adequate relief be granted to the petitioners.

13. Secondly, Mr. Majumder would categorically rely on the "Scheme for Payment of Ex-gratia Lump Sum Amount in Lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Ground". He would say that the scheme came into effect on November 6, 2007, and did not categorise legal heirs of a missing employee to be benefited under the said scheme. He would further submit that the scheme came into effect at a time when the said missing employee, was discharging duties in a regular manner. Therefore, it is suggested that acceptance of the said scheme, without any prejudice or condition, by the said missing employee, must be construed.

14. Mr. Majumder further rely on the previous scheme dated January 15, 2005, also to show that at no point of time the respondent Bank has made any policy to include legal heirs of the missing employee for allowing benefit treating that as died in harness.

15. Mr. Majumder has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision that is reported in AIR 1998 SC 1681 (Uptron India Ltd. vs. Shammi Bhan & Anr.), supporting his contention that the non-contractual part of the conditions of employment of the said missing person would be governed within the four corners of the policy, manifested through the well formulated scheme of the respondent Bank, as mentioned above. He says that the obligation on the part of the respondent Bank in that case would be to the extent of the terms spoken about in the scheme, and only that and not beyond. He has referred to the following paragraph of the judgment :-