IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9451 of 2009 MANJU DEVI, Widow of Ram Kumar Devakar, resident of Village Harnichak, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Beur, Distt- Patna. ------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its corporate Center at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai- 400021 through its Dy. Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer 2. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna 3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Patna Secretariat Branch, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna Secretariat 4. The Chief General Manager, State of India, Local Head Office at West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna 800001 5. The Assistant General Manager, Secretariat Branch, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna -----------------Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Bank S.B.I.:- Mr. Kaushlendra Kr. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kr. Singh, Adv. ---------------- 2. 10.8.2009 Petitioner’s husband was working in the State Bank of India, Patna Secretariat Branch, Patna. He died on 22.1.2008 in harness leaving behind four dependants including his widow. Petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The same having not been considered and she having been informed that the scheme of compassionate appointment had ended with effect from 4th August 2005, she was only entitled to ex-gratia payment for which she should make application. She has come to this Court challenging SBI scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount dated 4th August 2005. It is submitted that in terms of Section 30 of the State Bank of India Act, there is no delegation by the Central Board to frame any scheme like the scheme in question and as such the scheme is ultra vires and the scheme formulated by the executive - 2 - committee cannot be acted upon. This submission is made merely on basis of the scheme as has been circulated by Annexure-3, otherwise, there is no factual foundation thereof. It is well settled that if a scheme or a bye law is being framed under any status or any delegated authority, it is not necessary to state the delegation thereof. Absence of mention of delegation or the source of powers does not render the exercise void or voidable. Section 30 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 clearly empowers the executive committee to exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be thought to be necessary and may by the said delegation impose such restriction or condition as it may desire fit. There is nothing on the record to show that the executive committee had acted beyond authority delegated to it. On the contrary bank having accepted the recommendations of the said executive committee has acted and is acting in consequence thereof. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for. However, petitioner has the liberty to seek ex-gratia payment, if she satisfies the conditions of the scheme in relation thereof in accordance with law. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)