IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7069 of 2002 SMT.SUSHILA SHARMA WIFE OF LATE BINDESHWARI PRASAD SHARMA,RESIDENT OF Mallik Tola, Banka, P.S. Banka ,Distt. Banka. Versus 1.THE STATE BANK OF INDIA 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, JUDGES COURT ROAD, PATNA. 3.THE REGIONAL ( MANDAL) DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA. 4.THAT CHIEF MANAGER, PERSONNEL AND HRD DEPTT. S.B.I., MUMBAI. 5.THE ASSISSTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, S.B.I.,BHOWESH BHAWAN, BEATSAN ROAD BHAGALPUR. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.A.K.Chakravorty, Advocate. For the S.B.I.: Mr. 8 2.12.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for directing the respondents- Bank to award scholarship to her minor son under the Bank Scholarship Scheme contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in Government Training School Banka. Her husband, late Bindeshwari Prasad Sharma, was an employee in the State Bank of India and died during his posting at Bhagalpur, on 18.01.1996. The State Bank of India started a scheme for admission of children of bank Employees in certain Schools. The scheme provide subsidy to the extent of 60 % of admission, tuition and hostel fee, in respect of the students admitted to residential schools enlisted in the scheme against the seats reserved by the bank. Vikas Vidyalaya, Neori, Ranchi also figured as one of the schools under the Scheme as per Clause 3.2.2. During the life time of the deceased, his son, 2 Abhishek Vinayak started preparation for appearing in test examination for admission in Vikas Vidyalaya, Neori, Ranchi. He was selected for admission in the school in 1997-1998 in class-V, but unfortunately by that time the petitioner‟s husband had died on 18th January,1996. In fact, the petitioner‟s husband died leaving behind three unmarried daughters and one son, Abhishek Vinayak. Sudden death of deceased crippled the family financially. The petitioner somehow managed to admit her son at Vikash Vidyalaya, Ranchi, hoping that he would get subsidy to the extent of 60% from the bank. The petitioner filed various representations before the respondent bank dated 16.02.1999, 27.7.1999 and 20.05.2000 contained in Annexure- 2 series for payment of subsidy. The Bank vide Letter No.213, dated 18.06.2001 rejected her representations. The petitioner states that her representations were rejected vide letter dated 18.06.2001, on the ground that her husband had died on 18.01.1996, prior to the admission of his son in 1997-1998 in Vikash Vidyalaya on 24.04.1997. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection and submits that the same is in teeth of clause 3.3 of the Scheme. The Bank has filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, it is stated that subsidy for educational purpose is available only to the serving employees of the Bank or to the wards of such employees of the Bank, who died after their wards were already admitted in the school, to which the scheme applies. It has 3 further been stated in its counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner died on 18.01.1996. The admission of her son in Vikash Vidyalaya took place prior on 24.04,1997 in 1997 – 1998 Session. The issue is whether the scheme of the Bank would also cover the case of deceased employee whose child got admission in, one of the enlisted schools, even after the death of employee. The relevant clause which deals with the aforesaid issues are clause 3.1 and Sub-Clause (1) and (3) of 3.3 of the Scheme which is being produced herein below:- 3.1 “Due to an unprecedented expansion of the banking activities in more and more remote areas, our officers have been compelled to move to areas where educational facilities are scarce, if not totally absent. Ensuring proper education of the children of our officers, who are transferred periodically as a result of which their children‟s education suffers, was a problem and various options to sort it out were considered. After considerable deliberations arrangements have been made with the Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan and Delhi Public School, R.K.Puram to reserve seats for the Children of officers in their school(s).” 3.3.1. “In respect of award of scholarships under the bank‟s Scholarship Scheme, the 4 instant instructions are as follows: Scholarship may be granted in the prescribed manner to eligible children of all employees. The fact that the concerned employee is under suspension or against him disciplinary action has been initiated for charges involving vigilance angle or otherwise, should be ignored for the purpose of grant of such scholarships. On conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in cases where the penalty imposed results in cessation/termination of service of an employee, the scholarship would cease to would be stopped after the current academic year is over.” 3.3(3) “ In terms of the instant instructions, the cost of the education in the residential schools has been subsidized to the extent of 60% of admission, tuition and hostel fees in respect of student admitted to residential schools against the seats reserved by the Bank. In this connection, a query has been raised whether, after the death of the officer employee, it would be in order to continue to reimburse 60% of the eligible fees till such time the official would have attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 or 60 years as the case may be. The matter has been examined at Central Office keeping in view the spirit behind the scheme, it has been decided, with the approval of the competent authority that the facility of reimbursement of 60% of the admission, tuition and hostel fees may be continued to the word of deceased officer till 5 such time the officer would have attained the superannuation age i.e. 58 or 60 years as the case may be.” Before I deal with the aforesaid clause, I would like to refer to clause 3.1(1). This clause takes notice of the fact that on account of extension of banking activities, the officers of the Bank are compelled to move to areas where educational facilities are scarce. As such arrangement was made to reserve seats for children of employees in enlisted schools. Thus, as per Clause 3.1(1), the Scheme intended to confer benefits to wards of employees. Thus the seats are reserved for wards of employees, who at time of admission of their child is in service. Sub- Clause (1) & (2) of Clause 3.3 and 3(1) provide that children of even suspended employees or against whom disciplinary proceeding is pending would also be entitled to subsidy. Sub Clause 3 of Clause 3.3 clarifies as to whether after the death of officers and employees, it would be in order to continue to reimburse 60% of the eligible fee till such time the officials would have attended the age of superannuation. The Clause states on due examination, the Central Office decided that the facility of reimbursement of 60% of the admission, tuition fee may be continued to the ward of deceased officer, till such time the officer would have attended the superannuation age. The word „to continue to reimburse 60% of the eligible fees‟ would evidently refer to wards of employee who are 6 already admitted in one of the enlisted schools, under the Scheme against reserved seats of the Bank. The said Scheme no where states that such benefit would be conferred on ward, who are admitted in such enlisted schools, after the death of the deceased employee. Thus, the petitioner has not made out any case for issuance of direction to the respondent Bank to grant subsidy, as her husband died prior to the admission of his son in one of such schools. The scheme is not discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it is based on reasonable classification. However, denial of the relief by this Court would not come in the way of the employee in approaching the authorities for relaxation, if any. With the aforesaid observations this writ application is dismissed. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)