IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10478 of 2007 Santosh Kumar Paswan, son of late Nathuni Ram, Resident of Village Birampur, P.S. Koilwar, P.O. Birampur, District Bhojpur. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Regional Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Meena Plaza, South of Museum, Patna-1. 2. The Reginal Development Manager, Controlling Office, At Sri Harkhen Jain, Harkhen Jain Trust Bhawan, Hariji Kahatta, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Ara. 3. The Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Arrah. 4. The Branch Manager, Madhya Gramin Bank, Sakaddi Branch, District Bhojpur. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 7.4.2011 Heard Mr. Baksi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Vedsan, learned counsel for the Bank. Mr. Sinha would submit that when the father of the petitioner had died, the scheme for compassionate appointment of the Bank was still in vogue and, therefore, he cannot be compelled to opt for the other scheme, which has been introduced in July, 2006 with effect from December, 2005 wherein an ex-gratia payment as per the scheme has to be made in lieu of compassionate appointment. Mr. Vedsan, on the other hand, would submit that since the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate 2 ground was pending when the new scheme had come into force in the month of July, 2006, his case had to be also governed by the scheme in force. In this context, he would also rely on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar reported in 2010(2)BBCJ 353 (S.C.). In the considered opinion of this Court, this very aspect was decided by the Apex Court by holding that there was no subsisting right in the dependent of the deceased employee to claim compassionate appointment and, therefore, if the scheme of compassionate appointment was substituted by ex-gratia payment scheme, the pending application will have to be considered and decided only for payment of ex-gratia amount. Once this aspect becomes clear, it would be difficult for this Court to take any other view in the view of the fact that the law on this issue has been settled by the Apex Court. Mr. Vedsan would inform this Court that the petitioner had already been offered to avail the benefit of ex-gratia payment as 3 per the provision in the scheme but had refused to accept the same. Mr. Sinha would however point out that the petitioner was waiting for the result of this case and could not have acquiesced his right by accepting ex-gratia payment. Now when this Court would find that the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground is not possible, this Court would direct the respondent, authorities of the Bank to settle the issue relating to petitioner’s admissibility under the ex- gratia scheme and the amount found payable under the scheme also must be paid to the petitioner and/or other dependant of the deceased employee within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if for this purpose, the petitioner will be required to complete certain formality, that will of- course be done by him. The period of four months will in fact commence from the date the petitioner would complete such prescribed formality. 4 With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)