High Court · 2025

Mr. Arvind Vashist ha, Senior Advocat e assist ed by Dr. Neha and Ms. Monika Pant , Advocat es for t he appellant s.

2. Mr. Sushil Vashist ha, St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand.

3. Obj ect ion has been t o t he Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion. For t he reasons indicat ed in t he Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion, we allow t he Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion.

4. This int ra- Court Appeal has been filed by Cent ral Bank of I ndia, challenging t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 20.04.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Wr it Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 2416 of

2015. By t he said j udgm ent , Wr it Pet it ion filed by t he respondent , challenging denial of ex- grat ia benefit , which is payable in lieu of com passionat e appoint m ent , was allowed. The im pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below for ready reference: - “ Pet it ioner sought ex grat ia relief aft er t he deat h of her husband. The sam e has been denied t o her as per com m unicat ion dat ed 31.08.2015. The respondent - Cent ral Bank of I ndia has fram ed t he Schem e for Paym ent of Ex- Grat ia Lum p Sum Am ount in Lieu of Appoint m ent on Com passionat e Grounds. The Court has gone t he respondent - Bank has not t aken int o considerat ion t he form ula provided for in Clause No. 7 of t he Schem e. Accordingly, I m pugned order dat ed 31.08.2015 is quashed and set aside. Respondent s are direct ed t o re- det erm ine t he ex grat ia relief st rict ly as per Clause 7 of t he Schem e wit hin t en weeks from t oday. All pending applicat ions st and disposed of accordingly.” t he said Schem e. Prim a Facie, t he writ pet it ion is allowed. t hrough

5. Learned counsel for t he appellant s- Bank subm it s t hat Clause 7 of t he Schem e, int roduced by t he Bank on 16.06.2006, is not applicable in case of deat h of an em ployee, as t he said Clause deals only w it h cases where an em ployee ret ires on m edical grounds due t o incapacit at ion.

6. We find subst ance in t he said subm ission. As t he husband of writ pet it ioner ( respondent herein) died while in service, and her claim for com passionat e appoint m ent was rej ect ed vide order dat ed

05.04.2005, t herefore, Clause 7 of t he Schem e does not help t he writ pet it ioner ( respondent herein) .

7. Learned counsel for t he appellant s- Bank furt her subm it s t hat since t he claim of t he writ- pet it ioner ( respondent herein) for com passionat e appoint m ent was rej ect ed before t he Schem e for ex- grat ia relief was int roduced, t herefore, t he direct ion t o consider her claim under t he said Schem e is unsust ainable. The said subm ission is bereft of m erit , as t he Schem e nowhere provides t hat it w ill not apply t o cases where t he request for com passionat e appoint m ent has been rej ect ed. He furt her subm it s t hat int ent ion of t he Schem e can be gat hered from t he pream ble t o t he Schem e, where it is m ent ioned t hat t he Schem e has been fram ed t o help t he fam ily of t he deceased em ployee t o t ide over t he sudden financial crisis brought by pr em at ure deat h of an em ployee, in lieu of appoint m ent on com passionat e ground. However, t he pream ble do not support t his cont ent ion m ade by learned Senior Advocat e.

8. What we could gat her t he last sent ence of t he pream ble is t hat t he Com pet ent Aut horit y in t he Bank can consider grant of ex- grat ia am ount t o dependent s of a deceased em ployee, whose request for com passionat e appoint m ent has been t ur ned down. Thus, it m akes no difference as t o whet her rej ect ion of request for com passionat e appoint m ent is before or aft er enforcem ent of t he Schem e.

9. I n view of t he aforesaid discussion, we m odify t he im pugned j udgm ent and direct t he Com pet ent Aut horit y in t he Bank t o reconsider t he claim of t he wr it pet it ioner ( respondent herein) for ex- grat ia benefit as per t he Schem e int roduced on 16.06.2006, and pass necessary order wit hin t hree m ont hs t he dat e of present at ion of a cer t ified copy of t his or der. I f t he wr it pet it ioner ( respondent herein) is found ent it led t o t he benefit of t he Schem e, t he am ount found payable shall be released t o her wit hin t wo m ont hs of passing of t he final order. (A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) (M a n o j Ku m a r Ti w a r i , J.) SHIKSHA Shik sha BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD 9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA

13.05.2025