nrrrn 1N THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (S) No. M41 /2008 @£wgé$ awams ww Petitioners : 1 . VERSUS Respondents : 1 . 2. Central Bank of India Through: The Chief Manager, Zonal Office, 1S? Floor, Block “C”, Bombay Market, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG). The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Regional Office, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur Distt. : / Surguja (CG). 3. v~o., a ) ) > Basant Singh S/o. Late Ram Naresh Singh Aged about 23 years. Smt. Santosh Devi W/o. Late Ram Nares‘h Singh Aged about' 50 years. Both R/o. A—type Quarters, G.M. Complex, West Chirimiri Colliery, (Chirimiri), Distt.: Korea (CG). ‘2 y The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch: Chirimiri Distt.: Korea (CG). \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF k i INDIA ‘ iéf“g'; &co<oo¢xonaa4c ‘ :M — . A . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1641 0f2008 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri N.N.Roy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04H; day of February, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the orders dated 02.01.2007 and 06.01.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively, whereby the application for the petitioner No. 1 for grant of compassionate appointment, was rejected. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that father of the petitionerNo. 1 and husband of the petitioner No. 2 namely"”Ram Naresh Singh, while serving with the respondent—Bank as Armed Guard, died in harness on 01.08.2003. Apart from the petitioners, the deceased left behind two daughters also. At the time of death 0f Ram Naresh Singh, the petitioner No. 1 was major, and thus, he applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 16.09.2003. The petitioners waited for response 0f the Bank in respect of granting compassionate appointment. In the meanwhile, a new scheme namely Scheme for Payment of EX- Gratia Lump Sum Amount In Lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Ground, (for short ‘the scheme’) was introduced vide circular dated‘ 31.7.2006 (Annexure P/5). The said scheme was made applicable wef 14.12.2005. 3. Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since the application of the petitioner No. l was pending with the respondent Bank, the petitioners were under an impression that their \ case will be considered. Atter introduction of the new scheme, wherein ’l , \ 9‘ \ t \\ \ PETITIONERS Basant Singh & another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS Central Bank of India & Others. in @ it was clearly mentioned that the scheme for providing compassionate appointment was superceded. The petitioners, thereafter applied for grant of eX—gratia payment on 31.08.2006 (Annexure P/6). The respondent No. 2, Vide memo dated 21.12.2006, directed the respondent N0. 3 to make some correction over the application of the petitioner N0. 2 and send it back for considering their case. However, Vide order dated 02.01.2007 > (Annexure P/l) and 06.01.2007 (Annexure P/Z), the application for grant of grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected and even, no eX-gratia payment has been granted to the petitioners. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioners as per the scheme prevalent at the time of death of Ram Naresh Singh. Per contra, Shri Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was pending consideration with the respondent authorities as on 14.12.2005, the case of the petitioners was considered under the scheme. Under the clause 7 of the scheme, the total income of the family of the deceased employee arrived at Rs. 4 400/— which was more than 60% of the last pay drawn hence the claim of the petitioners for grant of ex gratia was also re] ected 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On pemsal of the scheme, it is apparent that eX—gratia may be granted only when’the monthly income of the family from all sources is less. than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of taxes) of the employee. On query, asto which scheme for grant of compassionate appointment was prevalent at the time of death of deceased Rain Naresh Singh, Shri Roy is not in a position to either produce anyrdocument or to submit. anything in this behalf. Thus, this petition on the said issue cannot be adjudicated for want of relevant documents. Clause 4 of the circular dated 16m June, 2006 (Annexure R/l) provides that all the pending cases as on 14.12.2005 and cases received/to be eceived for compassionate appointment thereafter will be processed as 1‘ \ \\\ \ per the new scheme for payment of eX-gratia lump sum amount, if. eligible. On 14.12.2005, the application of the petitioner No. 1 for grant of compassionate appointment was pending. Thus, his case was rightly decided in accordance with the scheme. Clause l of Annexure 1 to the scheme (Annexure R/l) provides that ‘employee’ for the purpose of the proposed scheme, would mean and include only a confirmed regular employee who was serving full time or part time on scale wages, at the time of death and does not include any one engaged on contract/temporary/casual/part time on consolidated wages or any person who is paid on commission basis. Under clause 2 of the Annexure — l to the scheme, ‘family’ for the purpose of the scheme would mean and include spouse, wholly dependent children (son, including legally adopted son/unmarried daughter including legally adopted unmarried daughter). In case of unmarried employee, parents who are wholly dependent on the employee will constitute ‘family’. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were members of the family and the deceased was a confirmed regular employee, thus, the entitlement to ex—gratia payment cannot be denied. However, clause 8 of the scheme provides for calculation of ex—gratia payment only for thosev‘members wherein the monthly income of the family is less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary (net of taxes). In the present case, as stated by the respondents that the income of the petitioner’s family was more than 60%, as the family of the deceased was‘ getting Rs. 4400/—, thus the case of the petitioners for grant of ex—gratia was rejected. On perusal of the above stated provisions, it is held that the scheme would be applicable to the case on hand as on the date when scheme came into existence, the application of the petitioner No. l for grant of compassionate appointment was pending consideration on 14.12.2005. Secondly, the family ‘of the deceased was earning more than 60 % of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee.~ Thus, under the ' scheme, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of ex-gratia payment. Grant of compassionate appointment and ex—gratia payment is not a part of the constitutional scheme of employment and is also not supported by @ (4» statutory rules or regulations. Grant of compassionate appointment and eX-gratia is under the scheme to provide immediate rehabilitation to the family in distress on death of the bread eamer of the family. There is no scheme for grant of compassionate appointment, and ex—gratia payment can be granted only in accordance with the scheme, not otherwise. Further, it is Well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penuriou‘s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. (See z Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singhl, State ofManipur v. Md. Rajaudinz, and State ofJ & K and others v. SajadAhmed Mir3 ). The deceased, Ram Naresh Singh died 0n 01.082003. Thereafter, the petitioners have sustained themselves ti‘ll datei‘for more than six years. Thus, the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment does not survive at this stage. Further, for want of relevant documents, it is not possible to examine the allegations made by the petitioners and to hold that the impugned orders are irregular, improper or bad in law. Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in this petition, warranting interference. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Amit l7. There shall be no order asto Costs_ // ‘ Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l (1997) 8 SCC 85 2 AIR 2003 SCW 4339 3 2006 (5) scc 766