SANTOSH DEVI Vs. ORLENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the Petitioner, Kabul Chand, was working as Peon in the Branch office of the Respondent bank at Nagina, District Mewat. Later on, he was promoted as Clerk. He was working with the Respondent bank for the last 8 -9 years. On 24th December, 2005, when he was going to attend his duty, Unfortunately, he met with an accident and expired. At the time of his death, he was more than 30 years of age. He left behind his widow aged 27 years, one son aged 9 years and two daughters, aged 5 years and 3 years. The financial condition of the family was penurious. The family was having no sufficient means of livelihood. On 16th June, 2006, the Petitioner moved an application (Annexure P -2) to the Respondent bank for granting her appointment under the Ex gratia scheme of the Respondent bank. The Respondent bank, - -vide its letter dated 27th June, 2006 (Annexure P -3) informed the Petitioner that the bank has stopped to provide appointment under the Ex gratia Scheme. In place of that policy, a new policy (circulated, - - vide circular dated 5th May, 2005) has been framed and as per the new policy, only one time financial assistance is to be provided to the dependent of the deceased employee, if the family is not able to earn the livelihood. The Petitioner was advised to send an application on performa for getting financial assistance under the said Ex gratia scheme. Accordingly, on 10th July, 2006, the Petitioner moved an application to the Respondent bank on the prescribed performa for grant of financial assistance under the Ex gratia scheme. When no financial assistance was released, the Petitioner sent a reminder to the Respondent bank regarding her grievance. Vide letter dated 23rd February, 2007 (Annexure P -4), the Respondent bank rejected the claim of the Petitioner for grant of financial assistance under Ex gratia scheme, but in the said letter, no reason was disclosed for rejecting the said claim of Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner served a legal notice dated 24th May, 2007 (Annexure P -5) to the Respondent bank for providing financial assistance to her under the Ex gratia scheme. Vide letter 22nd June, 2007 (Annexure P -6), the Respondent bank replied to the legal notice and stated that claim of the Petitioner for Ex gratia financial assistance in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground was considered and rejected by the Respondent bank and the said decision has already been conveyed to the Petitioner. In this reply also, the Respondent bank did not disclose the reason/ground, on which the claim of the Petitioner was rejected. Hence, the Petitioner filed the instant petition.

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice of motion issued, the Respondent bank filed written statement, in which it is stated that in view of the para 8 of the Ex gratia scheme, the Petitioner is not entitled for payment of the Ex gratia financial assistance, as her income from all sources is not less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee. It is stated that after the death of her husband, the Petitioner received an amount of Rs. 2,86,202.50 as net terminal dues from the Respondent bank and according to para 8 of the Ex gratia "Scheme circulated, - -vide circular dated 5th May, 2005 (Annexure P -7), the monthly interest at the bank's maximum term deposit rate on the net corpus of terminal benefits come to Rs. 1,434. It is further stated that the Petitioner is also getting the monthly family pension of Rs. 3,277.12, and she is also getting the monthly of Rs. 500 from the OBC Welfare Society. Thus, the total income of the Petitioner is Rs. 5,208.12 whereas the gross salary of the deceased employee i.e. husband of the Petitioner was Rs. 6,720.70. Thus, the monthly income of the Petitioner is more than 60% of the gross salary of the deceased employee.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contends that under the revised scheme/policy dated 26th September, 2007, the terminal benefits i.e. (i) Provident Fund (ii) Gratuity (iii) Leave Encashment and (iv) Any other amount paid under Bank's Scheme are to be included while calculating the monthly income of the family of the deceased employee. Learned Counsel contends that this scheme/policy of the Respondent bank is totally unjust and unreasonable, as the terminal benefits should not have been included, while calculating the income of the family of the deceased employee. These terminal benefits are the savings of the deceased employee, which the dependents of the deceased employee are legally entitled to receive. According to learned Counsel, these benefits are not the permanent income of the family of the deceased employee. Therefore, these should not be counted in the family income. Learned Counsel submits that the Respondent bank has acted contrary to the Ex gratia scheme, while taking into account the 'Family Pension' received by the dependents of the deceased employee. He further submits that the Respondent bank has also acted arbitrarily, while calculating the notional interest from the amount of terminal benefits paid to the Petitioner and counting the same in the monthly income of the family. He submits that if the 'Family Pension' and such amount of deemed interest is taken into account, while calculating the monthly income of the family of the deceased employee, then no family can avail the benefit of Ex gratia scheme. Learned Counsel further submits that there is also no justification for adding the monthly financial help of Rs. 500 given to the Petitioner by the OBC Welfare Society.