IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9650 of 2003 1. SABITA CHOUBEY, WIFE OF LATE MOHAN PRASAD CHOUBEY, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.66, CHANKYA PURI, RAZA BAZAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. DILIP KUMAR, SON OF LATE MOHAN PRASAD CHOUBEY, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.66, CHANKEYA PURI, RAJA BAZAR,/P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. ….. PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE- PATNA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (D. & P.B.) LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, PATNA. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, I.G.I.M.S. BRANCH PATNA. …. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 15.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’). 2. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Mohan Prasad Choubey who served in one of the branches of the Bank and while so serving left for heavenly abode, whereafter application was made to consider the case of petitioner No.2 for appointment on compassionate ground. Such request was rejected by the competent authority and the order was communicated to petitioner No.2 by the Branch Manager under orders dated 8.2.2003, Annexure-3. Perusal of order dated 8.2.2003, Annexure-3 indicates that the request for compassionate appointment was rejected with reference 2 to the amount of family pension and other income of the family including the liquid surplus of Rs.8.17 lacs. The calculation made in Annexure-3 was disputed by petitioner No.1 under her representation addressed to the Chief General Manager which was received in the office of the C.G.M. on 26.2.2003, as is evident from the receipt granted in the margin of Annexure-4. Having received the representation, Annexure-4 the Chief General Manager once again rejected the same under order dated 17.6.2003, Annexure-5. Perusal of Annexure-5 does not indicate that the Chief General Manager considered the submissions raised in Annexure-4 nor does the order indicate any reasons in its support. It is thus, submitted that while passing the order dated 17.6.2003, Annexure-5, the competent authority of the Bank has neither taken into account the submissions raised in Annexure-4 nor does it contain reasons in its support, in the circumstances, the order dated 17.6.2003, Annexure-5 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness infracting Article-14 of the Constitution and is fit to be set aside. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee, Appellant versus Union of India, Respondent, reported in AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT page 1984. 3 3. Aforesaid submission is being opposed by the counsel for the Bank with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank annexing the consideration made by the Assistant General Manager under his note dated 6.6.2003, Annexure-D placed for approval by the Chief General Manager on 9.6.2003 when he approved the note. It is submitted with reference to the consideration, Annexure-D that the request of the petitioner for reconsideration of the order Annexure-3, on the grounds set forth in Annexure-4 was made by the competent authority of the Bank on 6.6.2003 and 9.6.2003 and in the light of the consideration made by the competent authority, this Court should dismiss the writ petition. 4. I regret not to accept the submission of the counsel for the Bank. The order dated 17.6.2003, Annexure-5, E passed in the light of the representation of the petitioner dated 26.2.2003 does not contain any reason in its support. In the circumstances, there is hardly any difficulty in concluding that the same merely reflect the ipse dixit of the authorities without taking into account the consideration made on 6/9.6.2003, Annexure-D. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 17.6.2003, Annexure-5, E to the counter affidavit and remit back the matter to the Chief General 4 Manager to pass fresh orders indicating reasons as to why the submissions made by the petitioner No.1 in representation dated 26.2.2003, Annexure-4 is not being accepted by him. Having considered Annexure-4, if the competent authority is of the view that Annexure- 4 deserved to be allowed, it shall consider the case of the petitioners for payment of ex-gratia amount as the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground remained pending consideration before this Court. In this connection, I may point out that order dated 17.6.2003, Annexure-5 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition on 9.9.2003 i.e. within three months of the order and the matter remained pending awaiting disposal of C.W.J.C. No.1216 of 2003, which fact would appear from the order of this Court dated 10.9.2003 passed in the present application. C.W.J.C. No. 1216 of 2003 was disposed of under orders dated 19.10.2005 and such fact should have been brought to the notice of this Court by the Bank but as the writ petition remained pending even after 19.10.2005 petitioner cannot be held responsible for such pendency. Meanwhile, the new scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount came with effect from 4.8.2005, the competent authority, therefore, should consider the representation dated 5 26.2.2003, Annexure-4 in the light of the new scheme in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. AFR Ibrar/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)