SHREYAS GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. Vs. KASTURI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gramin Bank of Aryavart (earlier known as 'Shreyas Gramin Bank) through its Chairman and the General Manager, Gramin Bank of Aryavart are before this Court assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 22.9.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.43145 of 2007 (Smt. Kasturi Devi vs. Shreyas Gramin Bank and ors) wherein he had proceeded to allow the writ petition and the appellant-bank was directed to forthwith re-consider the claim for compassionate appointment within two months.

(2.) The factual situation that is accepted before us is that husband of the petitioner-respondent was working as a Class-IV employee under the appellant-bank and he died in harness on 27.9.2005. Thereafter being as widow of late Lala Ram, the petitioner-respondent had proceeded to move an application for compassionate appointment on 8th October, 2005. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 7.12.2010 precisely on the ground that in view of the new Scheme having been enforced, the petitioner-respondent is only entitled for ex-gratia lump sum amount which satisfies her claim, and as such, she was not entitled for compassionate employment. The said order was assailed before learned Single Judge on the ground that in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, 2007 3 JT 35, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that it is the scheme, which was applicable at the time of moving of the application, which has to be enforced and consequently the claim of the petitioner-respondent was liable to be considered for compassionate appointment. It had been pleaded before learned Single Judge that in view of Scheme, which was prevailing at the time of death of her husband, she was entitled for being considered for compassionate appointment and subsequent Circular issued by the appellant-bank would not divest her legitimate expectation for compassionate employment. Therefore, it was urged that she was entitled for consideration on the basis of the then existing Rules and the appellant-bank could not reject her claim on the basis of subsequent Circular.

(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant-bank that the petitioner was not entitled for consideration for compassionate employment in terms of the new Scheme as per the decision taken by the Bank. Reliance had also been placed to Clause 13 of the Model Scheme for payment of ex-gratia (lum sum amount), which recites that if any application is pending as on the effective date on the promulgation of the new Scheme, which is admittedly 21.10.2006, the same will be governed by the new Scheme and it had also been pleaded that compassionate employment is not vested right and as such, the date of consideration will be an appropriate date. Consequently the Scheme applicable on such date would be the criteria for consideration of such claim. The appellant-bank had placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. B-Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd, 2010 5 SCC 186, in which it was held in paragraph 22 as follow:-