IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14532 of 2006 RAKESH SHARMA, S/O- LATE TAPESHWAR MISTRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BASATAR, P.S.- KARPI, DISTRICT- ARWAL :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE MEENA PLAZA, SOUTH OF MUSEUM, PATNA-1. 2. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT MEENA PLAZA, SOUTH OF MUSEUM, PATNA-1. 3. THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, CONTROL OFFICE, ASHA SINGH MORE, GAYA P.S. & DISTRICT- GAYA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Amish Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Bank : M/S R.R.Upadhyay & Devi Das Srivastava, Advocates. ===== 4. 10.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”). 2. Petitioner is the son of late Tapeshwar Mistri who died on 27.11.2005 while serving in the Sahartelpa Branch of the Bank. Soon after the death of the father of the petitioner an application was made on behalf of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which according to the petitioner is dated 30.11.2005 but from the counter affidavit it appears that the said application was made on 16.12.2005. Later, when appointment of the petitioner was not made on compassionate ground he submitted 2 legal notice in June, 2006. From the writ petition the date of the legal notice does not appear. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner for appointment was considered on 13.06.2006 as also on 30.6.2006 but his appointment on compassionate ground was not made as the number of vacancies available in the Bank was not known to the authorities of the Bank. In this connection reference is made to the letter of the General Manager dated 13.09.2006, wherefrom it appears that the Board of Directors of the Bank considered the case of the petitioner and 5-6 others for compassionate appointment on 13.06.2006. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar, reported in 2010 (2) BBCJ IV-353 submitted that as the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered on 13.06.2006 in his case the new scheme which came into effect with effect from 31.07.2006 shall not apply. Learned counsel 3 for the petitioner further submitted that others whose case was considered in October, 2005 were appointed in May, 2006 and in the light of such fact petitioner’s case should also have been considered favourably for compassionate appointment as it was considered by the Board of Directors of the Bank on 13.06.2006 which is evident from Annexure 5/1 itself, the letter of the General Manager. 4. Counsel for the Bank opposed the aforesaid submission with reference to the averments made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit and submitted that others who were interviewed for appointment on compassionate ground on 07.10.2005, their case was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 24.11.2005 and in their case only the Bank issued the appointment letters in May, 2006. So far case of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that his appointment on compassionate ground could not be made by the Board of Directors on 13.06.2006 as on that day the vacancies available in the Bank was not known to the Board of Directors. 4 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having appreciated the fact that the case of the petitioner remained under consideration after application for compassionate appointment was filed by him either on 30.11.2005 or 16.12.2005, as has been stated in the writ petition, counter affidavit but no final decision was taken, may be on account of lack of information about the vacancies available in the Bank, in the circumstances, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground remained pending on the date on which the new scheme came into effect i.e. 31.07.2006. As the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground remained pending for consideration on the date new scheme providing for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment was adopted by the Bank, I do not see any illegality in the action of the Bank not to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Such action of the bank is also reinforced by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj 5 Kumar (Supra) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the case of those applicants who applied for compassionate appointment but their request for such appointment remained pending until coming into effect of the new scheme is required to be considered in the light of the provisions of the new scheme. I do not see any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. Before parting with this order the General Manager of the Bank is directed to make payment of the ex gratia amount to the petitioner in the light of Clause (10) of the new scheme as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the General Manager. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)