(1.) The petitioner, who is widow of late Hari Singh, who was working as Security Guard with the respondent-Bank, has approached this court impugning the communication dated 6.4.2009, whereby her claim for payment of lumpsum ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment was dismissed, being belated. The pleaded facts are that the deceased husband of the petitioner was working as Security Guard with the bank. He expired on 10.2.2000. At the time of death of the petitioner's husband, her only daughter was minor. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment for her daughter on 10.4.2000. The bank required the petitioner to furnish certain information regarding income of the family and particulars of dependents, which were duly furnished. Vide communication dated 8.1.2002, the petitioner was informed that the competent authority has accorded permission to keep open offer of appointment for her daughter till she attains the age of majority. She was required to submit a fresh application after she attains majority. The needful was done by the petitioner. The petitioner was further required to fulfill certain formalities, which were completed. The application remained pending with the bank. Under these circumstances, daughter of the petitioner sent a legal notice to the bank on 5.6.2004. Though an ex-gratia scheme had also been implemented for giving solace to the family of the deceased, even that was not paid. The petitioner was forced to file C.W.P. No. 17103 of 2004 in this court seeking a direction to the respondent-bank to consider the case of her daughter for compassionate appointment. A direction was issued to the bank on 8.2.2005 to decide the legal notice dated 5.6.2004. In terms of the directions issued by this court, legal notice was decided by the bank. The decision was communicated vide letter dated 25.4.2005 intimating that in terms of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, a new scheme has been formulated which came into force w.e.f. 24.1.2005. In terms of the new scheme, there is no provision for providing compassionate appointment, rather, it provides for payment of lump-sum ex-gratia. As all the pending applications are required to be processed as per new scheme, the application of the petitioner was also considered eligible to be processed under the new scheme, however, a fresh application was required to be filed as per the format annexed with the letter. The claim for compassionate appointment was rejected.
(2.) The petitioner challenged the aforesaid communication of the bank by filing C.W.P. No. 8564 of 2005, which was dismissed by this court on 26.5.2005. The same was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 23.9.2005. Unfortunately, the daughter of the petitioner met with an accident on 16.8.2006 and expired. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application for grant of ex-gratia amount. As no action was taken on her application, a legal notice dated 27.3.2009 was got issued, which was rejected vide communication dated 6.4.2009. It is the aforesaid communication rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is impugned before this court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially vide communication dated 8.1.2002, the petitioner was assured that her daughter will be offered appointment on compassionate basis when she attains majority, however, when the application was filed, the same was kept pending and ultimately the policy for granting compassionate appointment was scrapped and a new policy was framed providing for payment of ex-gratia amount, which was circulated on 14.2.2005. As per clause (9) of the scheme, it was enforced with immediate effect and all pending applications for compassionate appointment were to be dealt with in terms thereof, as in future there was no provision for providing compassionate appointment. Though the application of the petitioner was already pending, but still she submitted fresh application on the format, as was required. Even if there was some delay in filing the application, the same cannot be said to be fatal as it is the question of grant of solace to the family of the deceased employee for survival. The time provided in a scheme has to be considered in the light of the fact that the policy is meant for the benefit of the families of employees dying in harness and those seeking premature retirement/resignation due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years.