Gendram Baghel vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1685 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed upholding the order the respondent authorities declining to entertain the application for compassionate appointment holding that the appellant/writ petitioner is only entitled for ex-gratia lump-sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment.

Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge gravely erred in holding that the policy dated 18.05.2007, which provides for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount would be applicable and the policy on the date of death of appellant’s/writ petitioner’s father on 30.04.2005 would not be applicable, as such, the impugned order be set aside and the respondent-Bank be directed to consider the case of the appellant/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.

Per contra, Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the policy dated 18.05.2007 clearly provides that on the date of coming into force the amended policy, all the pending applications for compassionate appointment would be considered as per the said policy and in view of the decision rendered in case of N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, the policy which is prevailing on the date of consideration would be applicable. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of N.C. Santosh (supra), Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another v. V. Somyashree reported in (2021) SCC Online (SC) 704, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Premlata reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30 and further the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed on 06.09.2022 in WPS No.6689 of 2018, parties being Purendra Kumar Sinha and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others and observed as follows :

“13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the policy of 18.05.2007 was enforced still Virendra Kumar Gachpalle was granted compassionate appointment on the count that policy which was prevailing at the time of death of Virendra’s father cannot be ground for this court to allow the illegality if any committed by the Bank. The law has been well settled that illegality cannot be a ground to grant parity or equality even otherwise, the judgment of Hon’ble three judges Bench in case of N.C. Santhosh (supra), who is binding over the judgment passed by the two judges was not passed when the order for grant of compassionate appointment was considered by the bank in the matter of Virendra’s case. In the present case the bank has filed the specific affidavit narrating the correct factual position and referring to the clause of the policy which cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the policy when the case of the petitioner was examined by the bank.

Now coming to the facts of the case, as per new policy of 18.05.2007 which is made applicable to all the pending cases, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been not considered by the bank and directed the petitioner to accept the ex- gratia lump sum amount cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal which warrant interference by this Court. Since no infirmity is found on the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to accept ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”

A careful perusal of the policy dated 18.05.2007, which has been quoted in paragraph-5 of the order impugned, would show that the said policy which has been made applicable from 18.05.2007 would also be applicable in pending applications for compassionate appointment from the date of coming into force of that policy, and accordingly, the appellant’s/writ petitioner’s case has been considered in accordance with amended policy and he has been held entitled for only ex-gratia lump-sum amount. In case of N.C. Santosh (supra) their Lordships have clearly held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment and held as under :

“19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.”

It is apparent on record that though the appellant/writ petitioner has filed applications on 30.12.2005 (Annexure P/2), 28.09.2006 (Annexure P/3), 14.06.2007 and 30.04.2013 (Annexure P/4), but the said applications do not bear the acknowledgment of the Bank as neither seal of Bank has been affixed by the Bank nor any other officer has acknowledged those applications on behalf of the Bank and only on 17.08.2013 by way of Annexure P/5 letter, the Bank communicated the appellant’s/writ petitioner’s mother i.e., widow of the deceased directing her to send the application in appropriate proforma for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount and then the appellant/writ petitioner came into picture and filed an application on 25.05.2007 that his mother has no objection and he is entitled for compassionate appointment. As such, the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment prior to coming into force the amended policy w.e.f. 18.05.2007 is not established from the record. The learned Single Judge on the basis of materials on record clearly held that as per policy, which came into force w.e.f. 18.05.2007, the appellant/writ petitioner would be entitled for only ex-gratia lump-sum amount. In view of the above discussions, we find that the learned Single Judge has taken a correct view as the policy dated 18.05.2007 takes care of the pending applications from the date of coming into force the amended policy i.e., 18.05.2007,

The judgment cited by Mr. Johri, learned counsel for the appellant of this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and Others v. Khitesh Kumar Minj decided on 24.02.2022 in Writ Appeal No.425 of 2021 is not applicable for two reasons; firstly, in that appeal preferred by Bank, Bank itself made a concession duly recorded in paragraph-8 that Bank is willing to offer compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner therein; and secondly, the principle of law laid down in the matter of N.C. Santosh (supra) was not brought to the notice to Bench who decided Khitesh Kumar Minj (supra), as such, Khilesh Kumar Minj (supra) is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.

Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the The writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.