Aman Kumar vs Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank And Ors

Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma initially appointed on 18.01.1985 on the post of Accountant in Vananchal Gramin Bank and he expired on 01.05.2017 due to brain hemorrhage during his service tenure. The retirement benefits of the deceased employee like Provident Fund, Gratuity, Insurance, Leave Encashment, EPFO and SBI Life a sum of total Rs.31,26,112/- has been calculated in favour of Geeta Kumari, the mother of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner filed representation before respondent no.2 on 30.05.2017 praying therein payment of all death-cum-retirement benefit as well as for providing employment on compassionate ground to her younger son, Aman Kumar i.e. the petitioner. She again preferred an application before respondent no.1 on 26.02.2018 and the prayer was repeated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that mother of the petitioner has received the calculated amount of retirement benefits. He also submits that in view of Revised Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground/payment of ex-gratia in Vananchal Gramin Bank dated 18.03.2019, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. He refers to Clause 8.2 of the said Scheme.

Clause 8.2 of the said Scheme dated 18.03.2019 is quoted herein below:

"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."

By way of referring this Clause, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed as this Scheme is applicable retrospectively.

Per contra, Mr. Nipun Bakshi learned counsel for the respondents submits that the death of the petitioner's father occurred on 01.05.2017 and the Scheme on which the petitioner is relying, came into effect w.e.f. 08.03.2019. He further submits that at the time of death of the petitioner's father, another Scheme was there. In that view of the matter, the Scheme dated 18.03.2019 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. He also submits that this Scheme is not implemented retrospectively. Nothing has been disclosed in the said Scheme that from when it will be operated. He further submits that at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the Scheme dated 18.11.2008 was operating. He draws attention of the Court to Clause 5 of the said Scheme and submits that the mother of the petitioner is entitled only for ex-gratia payment.

Clauses 5 (a) and 5(b) of the Scheme dated 18.11.2008 is quoted herein below:

"5(a) In the cases as in para 4(A), ex-gratia amount will be paid to the family of the employee if eligible and if requested for within six months from the date of the death of the employee. The family shall be in indigent or penurious circumstances. "Family" for this purpose would mean and include spouse, wholly dependent children (son, including legally adopted son/unmarried daughter including legally adopted unmarried daughter). In case of unmarried employee, parents who are wholly dependent on the employee will constitute "family".

(b) Ex-gratia may be granted to the family of the employee in the manner and subject to the ceilings specified below, if the monthly income of the family from all sources is less than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of taxes) of the employee."

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Bank has offered the ex-gratia amount, but the same has been refused by the petitioner and her mother. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, which has also been disclosed in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit.

In view of the above submissions and considering the material evidence available on record, the Court has examined the Scheme of 2019, wherein, there is no surety that this Scheme will operate retrospectively. The father of the petitioner expired on 01.05.2017 and on that date, the Scheme of 2008 was operating. In the Scheme of 2008, there is provision of ex-gratia payment and compassionate appointment, but the compassionate appointment is made for the persons, who died performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity. Thus, Clause 4(b) of the 2008 Scheme is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. However, Clause 5 of the 2008 Scheme is applicable in the case of the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to the Court as he is saying that in 2019 Scheme, coverage is there in view of Clause 1.1. The said Clause of 2019 is not applicable as the father of the petitioner expired in the year 2017. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to Clause 8.2 of the Scheme 2019 is concerned, that is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the Scheme of 2019 is not implemented retrospectively. It is well settled provision of law that the Scheme, which is available at the time of death of the petitioner's father, that Scheme will prevail in the case of the petitioner. The Scheme of 2008 is prevailing at that time. Thus, the Court is not inclined to pass any positive order for issuance of direction to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Accordingly, that prayer is rejected.

However, considering this aspect of the matter that the mother of the petitioner is entitled for ex-gratia amount, in view of the 2008 Scheme, which was also offered by the Bank and the same was refused by the petitioner and her mother, the respondent-Bank is directed to release the ex-gratia amount in favour of mother of the petitioner in view of the Scheme of 2008. The mother of the petitioner is directed to make application in terms of the Scheme of 2008. If such application is there, the respondent-Bank shall consider it and pass appropriate order and release the ex-gratia amount in terms of the 2008 Scheme, as early as possible but not later than eight weeks from the receipt of such application by the mother of the petitioner.

In view of the above terms, this writ petition stands disposed of.