SUNITA DEVI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner expired on 21.4.2003. The legal heirs of the deceased employee were paid the retirement benefits. Thereafter, litigation ensued between the mother of the deceased on one side and the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased, on the other with regard to the payment of retirement dues. The civil suit filed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner was dismissed on 3.12.2005 by the Civil Judge, Mohindergarh. It was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, the mother and the niece of the deceased filed another suit on 3.1.2006 claiming benefits of the deceased employee. That matter is still pending in Court. It may also be pertinent to notice that the Scheme for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds which was operative in the Bank at the time of the death of the employee was subsequently withdrawn on 4.8.2005. The application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on two grounds, namely, that she had opted for ex gratia lump- sum amount as per the revised Scheme and the Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds had been abolished in the Bank w.e.f. 4.8.2005.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner had to be considered under the Scheme which was prevalent at the time of the death of the employee on 21.4.2003 and her application could not have been rejected on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Bank to withdraw the scheme which was earlier applicable. In any event, the fact that the petitioner is a handicapped lady, should have been taken into account. Therefore, the impugned order attached to letter dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure P-7) is arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been released the entire terminal benefits due to her on account of the death of her husband. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Bank as she had opted to receive ex gratia lump sum amount on the basis of the revised Scheme. However, her request for payment of the ex gratia lump sum has been deferred due to the pending litigation between the petitioner and the mother as well as the niece of the deceased employee. In the impugned order, the respondents have also noticed that the Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds has been abolished in the Bank w.e.f. 4.8.2005. In our opinion, the submissions made by the learned counsel are no longer res integra as the law has been well settled by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments. We may notice the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court.