IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3956 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR Son of Late Sheo Muni Ram, resident of Mohalla- Turha Toli (Nehru Nagar), Post Office- Buxar, P.S. Buxar, District- Buxar. Versus 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA Local Board (Patna Circle) through its president, J.C. Road, Patna. 2. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3. General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Gandi Maidan, Patna. 4. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Road, Buxar. 5. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Buxar. ----------- 2. 19.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died in 28.11.2004 at a point of time when the petitioner was minor, his date of birth is being 25.2.1989. The period of limitation in the Bank for filing applications for appointment on compassionate ground is one year as per the policy in vogue on the date of death of his father. Thus the petitioner had also not become major by that time and in fact he could become major only on 24.2.2007. In that view of the matter, it would be wholly irrelevant as to whether the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was filed on 7.8.2005 or on 3.2.2006 inasmuch as on both the aforesaid dates the petitioner was still a 2 minor and thus not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground in the light of law laid down by Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1993(1) PLJR 414. As a matter of fact, when the scheme of compassionate appointment had itself been abolished in the bank and was substituted policy of State Bank of India Scheme for payment of lump sum amount as ex-gratia with effect from 4.8.2005, the petitioner even otherwise could not have claimed for appointment on compassionate ground. This aspect of the matter in fact stands settled by the Judgment of this Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar reported in 2010 (2) BBCJ 353 (S.C.). Thus the solitary prayer of the petitioner in this writ application for a direction for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground has to be rejected. Before parting with, this Court however must indicate here that rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, would not mean that the Bank will also deprive the petitioner from payment of ex-gratia 3 amount in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the revised policy. The petitioner in fact was hopeful while awaiting the result of his application for compassionate appointment and therefore, in such a case, the Bank would be under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for ex-gratia payment. The plea of Mr. Mukund Jee, learned counsel for the Bank, that the petitioner has not opted for ex-gratia payment within the prescribed period of one year, cannot be sustained in the light of the facts of this case inasmuch as his claim for compassionate appointment was pending on the date of changed policy and in fact the Bank has also rejected the claim of compassionate appointment on the basis of changed policy. Therefore, the petitioner’s case for ex-gratia payment should be considered on merits and if he qualifies under the policy he also must be paid ex-gratia amount as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)