C ^ '2<3^/' IN THE HIGH OOURT OF JUDICATORE OF C.Q. AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITKM (£>) NO/1 ^ ou/2226 PETITIOMERS ,^£> °^"/ ..••••^-\T' ^y '^y ^' (I) Harsh Baahav, son ef late Shri Sadhu Bam Bagbav, aged about 22 years, resident of village Deepatoli Jashpur Nager.Behind of Jain Mandir Jashpur Nager, District Jashpur (Chhattlsgarh) (2) Smt. Radha Devi Saghav, Widow of Sadhu Ram Baghav, aged 54 years, resident ef Deepatoli Jashpur Nager, Behlnd of Jain Mandir Jashpur Nager, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPWDENTS f.--' .-•- Ss •E A^A t"^'* ^/;, 'KS'^ji msK/ ^(1) Panjab National Bank, Through Deputy General Maiaager Head Office Bhikhaji Ganma Place Africa Avenue New Delhi. / (2) Paajab Natienal Bank, Through (tegional Manager Regien Office Jabalpur 1227 Napier Town Jabalpur. ' T1^?^.^-?.?^•v^'y^^^-;.<TTP:^^^^MtS?^???^^S^^ '^VsSWr^ ^ (3} Panjab Natieaal Bank Branch Barsaal Sihor,ltireugh Manage Darsani Branch Sihere (M.P.) y WRIT PETITieN t®lD _ TICLE226/227 OF THE CmsTITUTION OF INDIA. HI6H COURT OF CHHATT[S©ARHAT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 4738 of 20)6 Petitioners: Hard' Baghav wd snother Versus Respondents: Panjab Nationa! Bemk & others Singte Beneh: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri J.S. Baraik, Advocate for the petiTioners. ORAL OR&ER ith (4Tn September, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnshotri. J. 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that father of the petitioner No. 1 namely Shri Sadhu Ram Bc^hay, whi'e workin9 as Ccishier in the re^iondent/Bank, died in hamess on 28.11.1996 (Annexure P/l). 2. The pet'tioner No. 1, being dependent and legat heir of the deceased Shri Sadhu Ram Baghav nxide a" application for compassionats appointment. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent/Bank has informed to the petitioner No. 1 that there wcs no provision of compassionate appointment. However, the petitioners were en+itled to ex.-gmtia amount, heepin9 !n yiew the facts cnd circumstances of the case. ^ 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner No. 1 has made an application, which is pendin9 consideration before tiie respondent/Bank. 5. The petitioner No. 1 seeks a d'rection to the respondent/Bank for disposa! of his application within a stipuhtad time. In normal circumstcnces, the peti+ioner's prayer for a direction for disposal of the appiication for grant of ex-gratia amount is not maintainabie. However, in the facts and circumstoinces of +he case, the respondent/Bonk is cfirected to consider and decide upplication of the petitioner No. 1 for gnmt of ex-gratid amount pending before the responclent/Bonk within a period of two months with the aforementioned observation, in accordemce wi-t+i tfflw. 6. Accordingly, +he writ petition steinds d'sposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bnblu nascwilUBiasNSMijassgBBBi