SUNITA SHARMA Vs. SATPURA NARMADA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by rejection of her candidature in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment. THE contention of the petitioner is that her husband was an employee of Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Morena (M.P.) and died in harness while in service on 12-7-2005. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as Branch Manager, Porsa, District Morena. THE petitioner has further stated that immediately after the death of her husband, she has submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment as per policy dated 23-1-1998, which was in existence for considering the cases in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment. THE petitioner has further stated that vide letter dated 11-10-2005, she was directed to submit further information for processing the case for grant of compassionate appointment and as desired by the respondent-bank, additional information was furnished by her vide letter dated 26-10-2005. THE petitioner has further stated that the respondents in spite of passing appropriate orders in the matter, delayed the matter for a period of about one year and vide letter dated 16-12-2006, the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was turned down. THE petitioner was informed that she will be entitled for grant of a lumpsum amount under the new policy issued by the Government of India and is applicable to the respondent- bank. THE petitioner's grievance is that in Ex-Gratia policy issued by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India and adopted by the respondent-bank cannot be made applicable in case of the petitioner and cannot wiped out the vested right accrued in favour of the petitioner prior to issuance of such policy.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. Swamy Dass Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2002(2) M.P.H.T. 320. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sunil Raghuwanshi Vs. State of M.P. and another in W.P. No. 3774/2007 (S), wherein again this Court has held that the policy in vogue will have to be looked into while considering the cases for grant of compassionate appointment and any subsequent policy cannot be looked into for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Ajara and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 641, and his contention is that the benefit which has accrued in favour of a person under the existing rules cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment with retrospective effect. He has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner before this Court is a widow of late K.C. Sharma, Branch Manager, who has served as a Manager in Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Morena, now re-named as Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and expired on 12-7-2005. At the time of the death of the petitioner's husband, the policy dated 23-1-1998 was in vogue. The aforesaid policy is enclosed as Annexure P-4 along with the writ petition. Clause 4 of the Policy provides for appointment on compassionate ground and the Competent Authority to issue appointment order is Board of Directors with the sanction of Sponsoring Bank. An application was submitted by the petitioner immediately after the date of her husband and the respondents sought certain clarifications from the petitioner vide letter dated 11-10-2005 and the petitioner immediately submitted all the desired information to the respondent-bank vide letter dated 26-10-2005. The subsequent policy issued by the Government of INdia is enclosed as Annexure P-ll and Clause 13 also provides that the Scheme of compassionate appointment as framed by the Government of INdia shall come into force from the date it is approved by the Board of Bank and in the present case, the respondent-bank has adopted and approved Scheme only on 6-10-2006. The Scheme also provides that pending cases shall also be governed by the new scheme as adopted by the Board of Directors. The petitioner's grievance is that her case cannot be turned down on the basis of subsequent scheme, which has been adopted by the bank on 6-10-2006 in view of especially the fact that her husband's death took place on 12-7-2005.