IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 418 of 2008 (S/S) Radhika Devi W/o Late Narayan Singh……….. Petitioner. Versus The Chief General Manager State Bank of India and another ……….. Respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Dalakoti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondent. The petitioner’s husband died in harness on 08.02.2006. The son of the petitioner applied for an appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by an order dated 01.04.2006 on the ground that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground has now been replaced by the scheme for grant of ex-gratia. The petitioner applied for a copy of the said scheme, which was not given and, eventually, the petitioner filed an application on 06.05.2008 applying for ex-gratia amount. This application has been rejected by an order dated 12.05.08 on the ground that the petitioner has applied for ex-gratia beyond the limitation of six months as prescribed under the scheme. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed the present writ petition. The scheme floated by the respondents for grant of ex-gratia is not based on statutory rules. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. M/s Central Coal Field Ltd. & others 2008 AIR (SC) 39 has held that the limitation prescribed in such scheme, which does not have any statutory force, is not imperative in character and that an application beyond the period of six months could always be entertained. The Supreme Court further held that the Public Sector Undertaking, which is the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is required to act fairly, reasonably and bonafidely. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner was neither fair nor reasonable nor bonafide. On the one hand, the petitioner’s application has been rejected on the ground that the scheme for appointment on compassionate appointment has been replaced by a scheme for grant of ex-gratia and when the application for grant of ex-gratia was filed, the said application was rejected on the ground of limitation. In my opinion, the action of the respondents was wholly arbitrary. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to grant ex-gratia amount to the petitioner as per the scheme within three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarw ala, J.) Dated: 07.05.2010 S.K.