IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9211 of 2007 Panna Devi, wife of late Hari Raut, resident of village Siswan, Purab Patti, P.O. Gangpur siswan, P.s. Sisawan, District Siwan. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Central Bank of India through Regional Manager, Personnel Department, Siwan. 2. The Senior Officer, Central Bank of India, Siwan. 3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Gopalganj. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 2.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 6.4.2011, which for the sake of clarity, is once again quoted hereinbelow:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It really shocks the conscience of this Court to find that the authorities and officials of Central Bank of India have adopted an autocratic approach in rejecting the case of the petitioner for even payment of exgratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. There is no explanation whatsoever in the detailed counter affidavit filed by the Bank that when the husband of the petitioner had died on 1.2.2006 while the Bank's policy for compassionate appointment was still in vogue and, in fact, was sought to be amended in view of a subsequent policy decision dated 16.6.2006, of-course giving it a retrospective operation from 2 14.12.2005, how could the petitioner be made to suffer even in getting the amount of ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment when she had already filed her application for appointment on compassionate ground on 3.5.2006 which was rejected only on 16.9.2006. Thus if thereafter the petitioner had also filed her application for exgratia payment on 21.12.2006, the Bank could not have rejected such application by holding it to be time barred in the light of provisions made in the policy dated 16.6.2006. The period of limitation in the case of the petitioner could begin from 16.9.2006, the only date the Bank had communicated its result refusing appointment on compassionate ground while rejecting her application dated 3.5.2006. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sinha, counsel for the Bank could also not find any plausible answer to this whimsical attitude of the authority of the Bank and he would only pray for some time for a reconsideration of the whole matter by the competent authority of the Bank. While this Court is really pained and disturbed with the autocratic attitude of the authorities of the Central Bank of India who have refused to entertain the application for payment of exgratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment on the ground of its being barred by limitation this 3 Court for the time being would only accede to the prayer of Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Bank to adjourn this case for reconsideration by the Bank after recalling the order passed by the authority on 21.4.2007, as contained in Annexure-F to the counter affidavit.” Today, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the Bank, wherein, the respondents have taken the following stand:- “2. That the deponent humbly submit that the competent authority of the Bank has sanctioned ex-gratia amount of Rs. 4,36,794/- in lieu of appointment on compassionate appointment. The Central Office vide it letter CO/HRD/R&P/2010- 11/111 dated 18.04.2011 has informed the Zonal Office of the respondent Bank about the said decision and the same has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque no. 8791 dated 21/04/2011.” It thus becomes clear that had this Court not passed the order dated 6.4.2011, as quoted above, probably the petitioner could still have been running for payment of her ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. This does not augur well for a nationalized bank, which survives on the 4 public fund. These banks also owe a duty to the society and its own employee dying in harness. This Court would not like to say anything more for the present and would expect that in future such autocratic attitude is never repeated by the Bank and its officials. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has been paid the all ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and the appointment of the petitioner is not permissible in view of the changed policy of the Bank as approved by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar reported in 2010(2)BBCJ 353 making it applicable to all the pending cases, the petitioner has to be satisfied with the ex-gratia amount. This Court, however, noticing that there was an inordinate delay in making payment of ex-gratia amount and in fact such payment came to be paid only when this Court had passed its order on 6.4.2011, would direct the respondents to pay cost, quantified at Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of 5 receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)