WP(C) 1473/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Ms. K Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also h eard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. Considering the grievance raised in this petition and also as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being di sposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner herein is a graduate whose husband Samarendra Sarma died on 24.5.05 while working in the United Bank of India at the age of 42 years. Her husband was the only bread earner in the family and therefore, after the demise of her husband, the petitioner alongwith her family had to face great financial hardship. The petitioner, therefore, submitted application before the authority to appoint her under the died in harness scheme. But, the authority directed he r to apply for payment of ex-gratia amount. Accordingly, as per instruction, pet itioner submitted necessary documents before the authority on 16.3.06 in order t o enable her to get the ex-gratia amount. After receipt of the petitioner’s docu ments, the respondent authority vide communication dated 3.5.06 informed the pet itioner that her claim/prayer for ex-gratia amount could not be considered as th e requisite doucments did not reach the office within the stipulated time. Being aggrieved with the decision of the authority, challenging the impu gned communication dated 3.5.06 (Annexure-I), the instant writ petition has been filed praying for setting aside the same. Admittedly, the petitioner’s husband died while in service in the respon dent Bank and she had submitted the requisite documents before the authority as directed. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a de tailed affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in the case wherein it has been cl early stated as to why the petitioner’s request could not be considered. Drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of para 5 of the same, Mr. Dutta ha s submitted that the respondent Bank vide letter dated 27.2.06 intimated the pet itioner that required papers/ documents must reach the appropriate authority, i. e. the Chief Officer (PA;AS) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the letter otherwise it will be presumed that the petitioner is not interested to a vail the benefit under the scheme and the file will be closed. Inspite of the af oresaid communication, the documents sent by the petitioner were received by the Bank after the stipulated period of fifteen days and therefore, the file regard ing payment of ex-gratia amount to the petitioner was closed. Mr. Dutta has furt her submitted that for getting ex-gratia lump-sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme of 2004 if the request is made within s ix months from the date of death of the employee some lump-sum amount is to be p aid to the family. However, in the instant case, request for such ex-gratia amou nt was made beyond six months from the date of death of the employee, i.e. the h usband of the petitioner and hence, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing f or the parties and also perused the materials available on record including the scheme for payment of ex-gratia. The object of the scheme for payment of ex-grat ia is to provide financial succour of the family of the deceased employee on account of untimely death. It is a beneficial measure that has been introduced by the Bank in lieu of compassionate appointment . Such a beneficial measure has to be construed as liberally as possible without violating the basic object of the scheme. In the present case, it is on record that the petitioner’s husban d died young i.e. at the age of 42 years. The petitioner can be understood to ha ve taken time in over coming the enormous tragedy that had befallen at a young a ge. More so, the petitioner was about 33 years having two minor daughters and 70 years mother-in-law to look after. The eldest daughter has developed critical d ecease resulting both the legs being permanently paralysed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that dela y in submission of required documents papers etc. is more than 3 months. In my considered opinion the delay that has occurred is not inordinate delay in view o f the tragedy faced by the petitioner due to untimely death of her husband. In s uch a situation having regard to the object of the scheme and the period of dela y that has occurred, the Court is of the view that the action of the responden t Bank in refusing to entertain the claim / application of the petitioner on the ground of delay is not correct. The said action, therefore, would be open for c orrection by the court. Accordingly, I allow this writ petition, set aside the order contained i n the impugned communication dated 3.5.06(Annexure-I) and direct the Bank to con sider the entitlement of the petitioner on merits. The whole process is to be co mpleted within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the above direction. No costs.