IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10249 of 2006 SMT.VINDWASHNI DEVI & ANR Versus THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4. 19.05.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Bank. The husband of petitioner no. 1 was deceased on 24.12.2002. An application was then made for appointment on compassionate ground of her son, petitioner no. 2. It is not in controversy that this application was in accordance with law and within time as the respondents themselves issued an interview call letter to petitioner no. 2 on 23.6.2005. The interview however could not be held. The respondents in their counter affidavit at Para 12 have only stated that “for some administrative reasons the interview could not be held on 28.6.2005”. No administrative reason has been disclosed in the counter affidavit at all. The petitioner no. 2 was again called for an interview on 29.8.2005 when no interview was held again. In the meantime the Bank came out with a new policy on the issue when it introduced a system of exgratia lump sum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment; a copy of this policy is on record as Annexure 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that this policy was prospective in nature and not retrospective. The eligibility for compassionate appointment shall have to be considered on the basis of policy as existed on the date that the right to be considered accrued. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the right to be considered for compassionate appointment flows out of a policy decision in that regard. No better benefit can be conferred than that provided for in the policy. In that view of the matter the eligibility for compassionate appointment shall have to be considered on the basis of policy that existed at the relevant time of death when an application came to be made. Any subsequent change in policy shall not affect this right of consideration as aforesaid unless the policy decision is changed retrospectively. More over in the facts of the present case the eligibility of petitioner no. 2 came to be considered before coming into force of the new policy on 4.8.2005 when the respondents called him for an interview on 23.6.2005. This Court has already noticed above that no reason whatsoever has been put forward to explain why the interview was not held on the scheduled date. To accede to the contention of the respondents and deny the relief to the petitioner in the circumstances shall be giving a premium to the respondents for their own inaction for not having considered the case of the petitioner in time. They cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own unexplained lapses to urge that though they may have been negligent the policy had now changed and the petitioner was not eligible for consideration, The writ application is therefore allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner no. 2 for compassionate appointment as on the date of death of the deceased employee under the policy as then existing and take a final decision in respect thereof within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)