IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.371 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 18122/2009) 1. General Manager, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Known as Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank) Head Office Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur- 842 001 2. Chairman, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Known as Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank) Head Office Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur- 842 001 3. General Manager (Personal), Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now known as Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank) Head Office Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur-842 001 4. Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Known As Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank) Head Office Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur- 842 001 ......... Appellants Versus 1. Manoj Kumar S/O Late Hari Mahto R/O Vill.- Mali Nagar, P.S.- Chak Mehsi, Distt.- Samastipur 2. The State Of Bihar ........Respondents For the appellants: Mr. Prashant Vedsen, advocate Mr. Subash Chandra Bose, advocate For the respondent no.1: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, advocate For the State: AC to SC 23 --------------- 4 25-08-2011 Heard the parties. The learned writ court has directed the appellant Bank to consider the case of writ petitioner, respondent no.1 herein, for appointment on compassionate basis in the light of earlier circular existing on 11-5-2005 when the father of the petitioner died in harness in the Bank in question. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgement of 2 this court in the case of Kiran Sinha Vs State Bank of India & Ors (CWJC No. 2164/2006) and several other analogous cases, dated 26-10-2010. The said judgement repelled the challenge to vires of Clauses 14 and 15 of the new scheme dated 4-8-2005 adopted by the State Bank of India for payment of ex gratia lumpsum amount in place of compassionate appointment. Following the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar 2010 (2) BBCJ Part IV 353 (SC), this court held that the new scheme shall govern all the pending applications for compassionate appointment, regardless of the fact that death of the employee occurred earlier and application for compassionate appointment was also filed earlier before introduction of the new scheme. It was explained, on the basis of Supreme Court judgement, that the new scheme will govern the pending applications because a scheme of compassionate appointment, by its very nature does vest right of appointment in an applicant. A similar view has been taken by another 3 Division Bench of this court in the case of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Vs. Chandramohan Mishra reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 450. The Regional Rural Banks have adopted similar new scheme in place of compassionate appointment as was done by the State Bank of India. In the aforesaid case dealing with the Rural Bank which had adopted the similar scheme, it was held that the new scheme dated 9-6-2006 shall apply to all applications for compassionate appointment pending as on 9-6-2006 and thereafter. In the present case, the death of writ petitioner’s father took place on 11-5-2005, application for compassionate appointment was made on 11-2-2006 and the new scheme dated 9-6-2006 was adopted on 26-8-2006 by the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank. In our view, the writ court has fallen into error due to not noticing the Supreme Court judgement and Division Bench judgements of this court noted above. The law having been settled in no uncertain terms, it was not possible for the writ court to hold that 4 the pending application of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment shall be governed by the old scheme. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has brought to our notice a Division Bench judgement of this court in the case Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Vs. Ravi Bhushan (LPA no. 620/ 2010) dated 25-3-2011 in which a view was taken that the pending application of the claimant for compassionate appointment should be considered in the light of earlier scheme because there was no explanation why the application submitted on 15-12-2002, within one month of death of employee, had been kept pending for such inordinate long period. Thus, facts in that case were somewhat different but, in our view, that judgement was rendered per incuriam of the earlier Division Bench judgement of this court in the case of Kiran Sinha Vs State Bank of India & Ors. (CWJC no. 2164/2006) dated 26-10-2010. It is to be noticed that the same Division Bench in its decision dated 3-5-2011 in the case of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Vs Chandramohan Mishra has taken a different view 5 which is in accordance with earlier Division Bench view in the case of Kiran Sinha Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Thus, in our considered view, the judgement rendered by the writ court is not in accordance with the law settled by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this court and, accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed. It goes without saying that the pending application of the writ petitioner shall be governed by the provisions of the new scheme and shall be disposed of in accordance with law. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)