NIRMALA RAIKWAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 11.8.2007 passed by the respondent/bank rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and granting liberty to the petitioner to seek ex-gratia in accordance to a scheme formulated by the Bank in the matter of granting compassionate appointment vide policy dated 4.8.2005, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) - Facts in brief, which are relevant, goes to indicate that petitioner's husband Late Shri Suresh Kumar Raikwar was working as a Messenger in the State Bank of India, and was posted in Naya Gaon Branch, Jabalpur. He died in harness on 7.10.2004 at Jabalpur leaving behind the petitioner, minor daughter (now 17 years) and a minor son (now 16 years). Annexure P/2 is the death certificate of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Raikwar. It is the case of the petitioner that on 6.11.2004, she submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance to the scheme and policies prevailing and the said application was forwarded by the Assistant General Manager, for consideration to the competent authority vide his recommendation i.e... Annexure P/5 dated 6.7.2005. In the meanwhile, as no action was taken petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 16063/2005(S), complaining that her case for compassionate appointment has not been considered. The writ petition was disposed of vide order-dated 14.6.2007 � Annexure P/8, with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance to the scheme and rules prevailing.

(3.) 8.2005, and when this scheme came into force petitioner has submitted another application, which also was pending consideration when the writ petition was filed. Even though the Bank informed the petitioner that she cannot be granted compassionate appointment, but her case can be considered under the scheme dated 4.8.2005, for grant of ex-gratia. It seems that the petitioner did not accept the same and insisted upon claiming compassionate appointment and when the same was rejected, this writ petition has been filed. 4- Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that when the petitioner staked her claim for grant of compassionate appointment on 6.11.2004, the scheme dated 4.8.2005 had not come into force and when the cause of action accrued to the petitioner for claiming compassionate appointment, as the scheme dated 4.8.2005 was not in existence, her claim should have been processed and decided in accordance to the scheme that was existing on 6.11.2004 and, therefore, rejecting her claim on the ground that she can claim ex-gratia as per the scheme dated 4.8.2005 is said to be unsustainable. In sum and substance, it is the case of the petitioner that she should be granted compassionate appointment in accordance to the scheme that was existing prior to 4.8.2005 and the scheme dated 4.8.2005 being subsequent to filing of her application cannot be made applicable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of General Manager (Admn) and PIO O/o CGMT and another Vs. Vishal Singh B. Jadeja and another, Special Civil Application No.7215/2011, decided on 18.7.2011; and, certain observations made by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.16270-26280/2010 [State of Gujarat and others Vs. Jagdish Savji Padaya and another] decided on 19.10.2010, to contend that the scheme for compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the scheme that was existing at the time of death or submission of application and not on the basis of the scheme that came into existence subsequently.