IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15644 of 2009 1. MEENA DEVI W/O LATE SHATRUGHAN JHA VILL.- CHAJAN HARIRAI TOLA, P.O.- CHAJAN HARISHANKAR VIA TURKI, P.S.- KUDHANI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 2. DEEPAK KUMAR JHA S/O LATE SHATRUGHAN JHA VILL.- CHAJAN HARIRAI TOLA, P.S.- KUDHANI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CLUB ROAD, RAMNA, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER GORAUL BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- For the petitioners :- M/S Sanjay Singh & Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the S.B.I.:- Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ====== 3. 19.11.2009. 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 and 2 are the wife/son of the Ex-Guard of the Bank, Goraul Branch in the district of Vaishali. Their husband/father left for heavenly abode on 22nd July, 2009 and they have filed this writ application for quashing the letter of the Bank dated 25.09.2009, Annexure-1, whereunder application of petitioner no.1 for compassionate appointment of her son dated 08.09.2009 has been rejected on the ground that the scheme for compassionate appointment has been withdrawn in the light of the scheme for payment of ex gratia lump sum amount and in the light of the new scheme for payment of ex gratia lump sum amount her son cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the new scheme introduced by the Bank for payment of lump sum amount on various grounds. The primal ground assailing the scheme is that the scheme is violative of right to life of the dependents of the deceased employee enshrined under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of such - 2 - submission learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to paragraph 3 of the scheme submitted that the objective behind the scheme is to modernize the Bank by introducing on line banking and for achieving such objective bank need not shelve the present policy of compassionate appointment as compassionate appointment is given only on Class-III and IV post and by recruiting Class-III, IV employee on compassionate ground the objective to modernize the bank cannot be defeated. In this connection learned counsel pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. The State of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCW 2305 observed that the scheme for compassionate appointment is introduced by the employer so as to enable the dependents of the employee dying in harness to tide over the immediate crisis which has arisen on account of the death of the employee and such scheme should be enforced so as to enable the dependents to survive. 4. The Bank, it appears, having faced various difficulties, as is noted in different paragraphs of the scheme, chose to withdraw the scheme for compassionate appointment with scheme for payment of ex gratia amount and this Court may not take any exception for replacement of the Scheme for compassionate appointment with scheme for payment of ex gratia amount. Counsel for the petitioners with reference to paragraph 8 of the scheme submitted that the scheme inter alia provides that if the monthly income of the family from all sources calculated in the manner shown in paragraph 9 B of the scheme is less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the employee, the dependent(s) shall be eligible for payment of ex gratia amount. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Sub-Clause (B) of Clause 9 of the scheme and - 3 - brought to my attention that while calculating the monthly income of the family the terminal benefits paid to the family is also taken into account which can hardly be the monthly income of the deceased employee. I see substance in this submission and observe that the payment of terminal benefit of the deceased is one time affair as having received such amount once no such payment is to be made to the dependent of the deceased employee thereafter and thereafter he has to survive only on other income which is likely to accrue to the family thereafter. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the Bank, while finding no fault with the action of the Bank withdrawing the scheme of compassionate appointment, I, however, observe that while calculating the monthly income of the family of the deceased employee the terminal benefits should not be taken as monthly income of the family of the deceased employee. For such purpose only the income accruing therefrom per month should be taken into account and eligibility of the ward of petitioner no.1 be considered for such grant of ex gratia payment on the basis of the monthly income of the family. The application of the petitioners for grant of such ex gratia amount be considered by the authorities of the Bank in the light of the provisions contained in paragraph 11 of the scheme, if filed within six months from the date of death of the deceased employee. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)