IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 156 of 2010 Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhowali Branch, Bhowali District Nainital. …..Appellant. Versus Radhika Devi, W/o late Narayan Singh, R/o Harish Adhikari Niwas, Rehad Bhowali, District Nainital. …Respondent. Present:- Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J, (Oral) 1. The husband of the respondent, an employee of the State Bank of India, died in harness. In such view of the matter, the son of the respondent applied for an appointment on compassionate ground. In response to the said application, the State Bank of India informed the son of the respondent that the Bank has no scheme for giving appointment on compassionate ground to a member of the family of an employee, who has died in harness. In the said response, it was also indicated that at present the Bank has a scheme, whereby the family of an employee, who has died in harness, may be granted ex-gratia payment. Respondent thereupon obtained a copy of the scheme for giving ex-gratia payment. She thereupon applied for obtaining ex-gratia payment for her husband, an employee of the Bank died in harness. This application was submitted six months after the death of the husband of the respondent. On that ground, the application was rejected by the Bank, inasmuch as the scheme provided that an application for ex-gratia 2 payment should be made within a period of six months from the date of death of the employee concerned. The respondent accordingly approached the Court by filing a writ petition. By the judgment and order in Appeal, the writ petition has been allowed and accordingly, the order rejecting the application of the respondent for grant of ex- gratia payment has been set aside with a direction upon the Bank to pay ex-gratia amount payable to the respondent in terms of the scheme within three months. Being aggrieved thereby, the Bank is before us in this appeal. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. M/s Central Coal Field Ltd. & others 2008 AIR SC 39, the order of the Bank rejecting the application of the respondent for grant of ex-gratia payment on the ground that the same was made beyond the time mentioned in the scheme is not sustainable. However, in view of what has been stated above, it appears that the Bank has not applied its mind whether the respondent in terms of the scheme propounded by the Bank is entitled to grant of ex-gratia payment. We think that accordingly the Bank has been able to make out a ground that the direction contained in order under Appeal to the effect that the Bank should pay the ex-gratia amount to the respondent is interferable. We accordingly set aside that part of the judgment and order in Appeal, whereby the Bank has been asked to grant ex-gratia payment to the respondent 3 as per the scheme within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order in Appeal. 6. We, accordingly, dispose of the Appeal with a direction upon the Bank to consider the application of the respondent for grant of ex-gratia payment considering the same to have been filed on time and thereupon to communicate to the respondent the outcome of such consideration. The above exercise be completed as quickly as possible but not later than three months from today. It goes without saying that in the event the Bank is of the view that the respondent is entitled to any ex- gratia payment in terms of the scheme propounded by the Bank, it shall ensure payment of such amount payable to the respondent within the period as above. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 06.10.2010 Rathour