IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10021 of 2003 SAYEDA KHATOON WIDOW OF LATE S.M.M. ALAM, RESIDENT OF BAKERGANJ, MOHARAMPUR, P.S.- PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT- PATNA. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY 3. ZONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA ZONE, PATNA. 4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA CIRCLE, J.C. ROAD, PATNA. 5. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHAUHATA BRANCH, PATNA. …. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate. For the State Bank of India : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1, Union of India : Mr. P.L. Jaiswal, Advoate (Central Govt. Counsel) (C.G.C. ----------- 4. 15.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’). 2. Petitioner is the widow of late S.M.M. Alam who served in one of the branches of the Bank and while so serving left for heavenly abode whereafter request was made on behalf of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected under orders dated 12.9.2002, Annexure-2 with reference to the total income of the family from all sources including family pension and income from assumed interest on investment. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the calculation made in the 2 impugned order does not reflect to be correct factual status of the income of the petitioner and highlighting such fact petitioner submitted representation dated 26.5.2003 to the Chief General Manager, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-3 to this application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that this case remained pending with effect from 16.9.2003 the Bank has not chosen to consider the representation dated 26.5.2003. This case remained pending in terms of the order of this Court dated 17.9.2003 awaiting disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 1216 of 2003. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank that perusal of the representation dated 26.5.2003 would indicate that thereunder petitioner has sought review of the earlier order dated 12.9.2002 and as the Bank does not have any power to review the order rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment such application was misconceived and was not required to be considered but the Bank has considered the same and rejected under orders dated 25.8.2003, Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Perusal of the order dated 25.8.2003 does not indicate that thereunder the submissions raised by the petitioner under representation dated 26.5.2003, Annexure-3 has 3 been considered by the competent authority. In the circumstances, the order dated 25.8.2003, Annexure-D to the counter affidavit is set aside directing the competent authority of the Bank to reconsider the matter in the light of the representation dated 26.5.2003 in accordance with law. In case the representation dated 26.5.2003 is fit to be allowed the bank should consider such request in the light of the provisions of the subsequent scheme dated 4.8.2005 as during the pendency of this writ petition, the Bank formulated another scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and in Clause-14 thereof it has been stated that all the pending application shall be considered in the light of the new scheme. Necessary consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of my order be made, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)