SMT. RENUBALA BHUYAN Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Padma Charan Bhuyan, husband of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Manager in Indian Bank, died on 16.06.2006 leaving behind his widow, i.e., the petitioner, two daughters and one son. After his death, the AFR Branch Manager, Indian Bank intimated the petitioner by letter dated 19.07.2006 to apply in proper format for payment of 'exgratia' under the scheme in lieu of compassionate appointment to the family of the employee died in harness. The petitioner could not submit her application for payment of 'ex-gratia', as because she met with an accident just before the death of her husband and was bed ridden almost two years with multiple fractures and brain injury. Further, she also lost her mental balance due to death of her son-in-law in a road accident. However, she submitted the application on 11.04.2012, but the Branch Manager returned the same vide letter dated 23.10.2012 with a request to resubmit the same after fulfilling required conditions mentioned therein. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 10.12.2012, which was forwarded to the Zonal Office for payment of 'ex-gratia' in lieu of compassionate appointment. However, pursuant to letter dated 22.02.2013 of the Zonal Office, the Branch Manager in its memo dated 27.02.2013 returned the application for payment of 'ex-gratia' in lieu of compassionate appointment stating therein that the higher authority declined to entertain the application, as it was not submitted by the eligible dependants within the stipulated period from the date of death of the employee died in harness. Hence, finding no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has, by means of this writ application, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) Mr. D.P. Dhalasamanta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that non-acceptance of the application for grant of 'ex-gratia' in lieu of compassionate appointment, on account of death of an employee, taking recourse to a technical ground of delay, frustrates the very purpose of the scheme itself. It is further contended that, when the reason for delay in submitting the application for payment of 'ex-gratia' is tale-tell, the action of the authority in returning the same cannot sustain in the eye of law, as it violates Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the purported delay caused in submission of the application for grant of 'ex-gratia', being neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the authority concerned should not have rejected the same without appreciating the sufficiency of cause shown and, as such, the action of the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and contended that since the petitioner had submitted application after six years of the death of the employee and the same was beyond the prescribed time limit, i.e., six months from the death of the employee, the authority is justified in rejecting the application, which does not warrant any interference at this stage.