IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12696 of 2008 Pankaj Kumar, Son of Late Sheo Nath Singh, resident of Qr. No.4M/2, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.-Bhut Nath, District-Patna. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State Bank of India through its General Manager, Local Head Office, Patna. 2. The Chief General Manger, State Bank of India, Local Office, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3. The Deputy Managing Director & Corporate Development Office, State Bank of India, Local Office, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 4. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Patna. 5. The Assistant General Manager, S.B.I., Secretariat Branch, Patna. 6. The Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Patna. -Respondents. ----------- 03 08.10.2009 This case exemplifies the total insensitivity of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) towards its employees and its commitments towards them. The writ petitioner is a young boy whose father was the Head Assistant in the Secretariat Branch of the State Bank of India at Patna. He suffered from chronic renal failure. The only possible way to save him was a Kidney transplant. Petitioner at that time was just about attained majority, being the son agreed to donate his one of the Kidney. His transplant was performed but petitioner’s father could not survive that left the family suddenly without proper income. Petitioner’s father, thus, died as a Head Assistant in harness in service of the Bank. Petitioner being a young boy and not an employee of the Bank and not aware of the rules and regulations of the Bank applied for compassionate appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme of the Bank, that is not in - 2 - dispute. His application and other papers were sent by the Secretariat Branch of the Bank to the Zonal Office of the Bank at Patna on 02.06.2003. On 06.06.2003 the Zonal Office returned the papers to the Secretariat Branch under their letter no.218 dated 06.06.2003 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), pointing out that certain documents had not been annexed to the application for compassionate appointment and after completing those formalities at the Branch level they should be sent to the Zonal Office. Petitioner has himself admitted in the writ petition that he was informed about this on Telephone. He has categorically stated that he supplied the documents and information as were required of him. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner did not supply the documents. What is not stated in the counter affidavit is that if the petitioner had not supplied the documents, what further step was taken by the Bank? For the simple reason, Bank took no further steps. It went into deep insensitive slumber. I will refer to the contents of the said Annexure-A to the counter affidavit at an appropriate stage. Then, it appears that in the year 2005 petitioner was told that he was now entitled to ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment. Petitioner made an application in terms of State Bank of India scheme for appointment of ex-gratia lump sum amount. Which scheme came into effect on 4th August, 2005, replacing the scheme of compassionate appointment. Now, once petitioner applied for ex-gratia payment, the same is rejected on the ground when this scheme for ex-gratia payment came into effect petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment - 3 - was not pending. It may be noted that the scheme for ex-gratia payment is applicable to applicants whose applications were pending for compassionate appointment or where death or pre-mature retirement took place after the scheme came into effect. The result was that this poor little young boy was first because of insensitivity of the Bank and its Officers deprived of compassionate appointment and then deprived of ex-gratia payment as well. On the face of it, there cannot be anything more arbitrary than this. The reasons are as under. The petitioner having applied for compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that having processed the same the Branch Office forwarded it to the Zonal Office. What the Zonal Office found is scandalous and speaks volume about responsible Officers looking after the deceased colleague. This will be found in Annexure-A, as referred to above. Petitioner’s very application for compassionate appointment was not forwarded. Out of 10 requirements which were lacking straight way requirements were entirely complied by the Branch Office itself that help or add information from the petitioner. They were all information which is maintained at the Branch Office itself. They were not sent. The only two things which the petitioner was required, was the application of petitioner which the Court presumes must have been there because without that the things cannot proceed. But, some mysterious reasons, the same was not sent. The second was some personal details about family members and their educational qualifications. A form of which only few columns was blank, shocks this Court. Is the Assistant General Manager of the Branch, who forwarded the proposal to the - 4 - Zonal Office for some mysterious reasons forgot to give his own recommendation and left that form also blank? There is no explanation forthwith coming from the Bank as to why its own Officials chose to forward blank forms and with intention in mind if not to ensure that the petitioner did not get what is originally due to him. For what consideration this Court cannot speculate. Then, we come to the admission of the petitioner that he was informed on Telephone about this letter. Petitioner states that he gave the information. In the counter affidavit of the Bank, it is said that information was not supplied. For this, one has to see what information the petitioner was to supply, as noted above. The only information the petitioner was to supply was some information with regard to age and qualification of family members. This could have been supplied on Telephone itself to be incorporated in the form already filled up and signed up. Then, the Bank says that the petitioner failed to comply with the formalities is farce and mala fide. It is the Bank itself which failed to comply with its responsibilities in the matter. Now, nowhere in the counter affidavit is it stated that petitioner having been asked to supply any information or document and having failed to comply, even a Telephone call was given to him, much less a letter pointing out that his application could not be proceeded with or had been rejected because of his failure to supply documents. The reason is that there was no such communication ever made to the petitioner and over two years thereafter petitioner was made to run from pillar to post in totally insensitive manner to the plight of the petitioner and advised him about ex-gratia payment. Petitioner - 5 - accordingly applied but now on the pretence of and the false pretext of his compassionate appointment having been dropped, even this ex-gratia payment has been denied. This caps it all. What could be more insensitive attitude towards words of its dead employee? Virtually, the situation is that someone in the Secretariat Branch goofed out for what reason this Court will not speculate. Then, someone woke-up took pity but then someone decided to acts strictly according to letter of law. In my view, the facts clearly indicate that the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was pending when the ex- gratia payment scheme came. Undisputedly, it was not cancelled/ rejected. Not a single chit of paper has been brought on record. Nor as there any averment to that extent. The application for compassionate appointment being pending when the ex-gratia payment scheme came into being, the petitioner automatically being entitled to ex-gratia payment and denial thereof, is mala fide in fact or in law. It is most shameful and arbitrary on the part of the Bank to act in such a manner, especially towards the word of its dead employees. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The order denying ex-gratia payment to petitioner, as contained in Annexure-2, being letter dated 11.12.2007 of the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch to the petitioner is set aside. Let a writ of mandamus be issued directing the State Bank of India to forthwith settle the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia payment preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of this order before the said Assistant General Manager. - 6 - In the facts aforesaid, the Court was of the view that this case called for exemplary cost but in the hope that Bank would at least see sense of justice and make payment, which is long-long over due. The Court restrains itself from passing any such order. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)