WP(C) 6094/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Ms. P. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.C. Gosw ami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.02.2010 (Annexure - 5) , rejecting the prayer for Ex-gratia payment on compassionate ground on the plea that the claim was lodged beyond a period of 6 months from the date of the deat h of the employee, and for a direction to the respondents to grant Ex-gratia pay ment. The husband of the petitioner, Arun Gogoi, who was working as a clerk in UCO Ban k for about 21 years, died in harness on 27.07.2006, leaving behind the present petitioner, 4 children and an ailing mother. Her husband had 16 years of service left. In view of the financial crisis faced by the petitioner in the wake of death of her husband, she was allowed to work as FARASH at Rs. 70/- per day, which was al so discontinued after two months. The petitioner had made an application for com passionate appointment within a period of 4 months of demise of her husband. The re was no response to the said application. Much later, the petitioner came to l earn that the UCO Bank had introduced a scheme for payment of Ex-gratia/lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds by a Circular dated 18.1 1.2005 and accordingly, she lodged a claim on 07.06.2010 in terms of the said sc heme. It is categorically stated in the writ petition that she was regularly vis iting the Bank but was never informed about the scheme and the scheme was also n ot put up in the notice board in the Bank. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is st ated in paragraph 7 that having not received any appointment under compassionat e ground, the writ petitioner has submitted application for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment after the expiry of time period and the depon ent has forwarded the said application to his higher authorities and the higher authorities on 23/2/10 express their inability to consider the request of the wr it petitioner on the ground that the application was not made within 6(six) mont hs from the date of death of the employee. Stand taken in the affidavit is that in terms of Clause - 3 of the scheme, appli cation having been filed beyond the stipulated period of 6 months, the impugned order was rightly passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is on record that the petitio ner had filed an application for appointment and therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the Bank officials to have informed about the fate of her applicatio n forthwith. The Bank could have also converted the said application to one unde r the scheme or if the petitioner was informed, she could have also suitably act ed upon, as the financial crisis the petitioner is facing is not in question. Mr. P. C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent UCO Bank has rei terated the stand taken in the affidavit and submits that when submission of app lication has to be within a specific time period of 6 months, no illegality was committed by the respondent Bank when, admittedly, the application was filed aft er 3 years 2 months and 11 days. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on recor d. A perusal of the scheme, known as Scheme for payment of Ex-Gratia/lump sum amou nt in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds shows that earlier there was a provision for employment on compassionate ground. The scheme visualizes that in case of death of an employee on and after 01.08.2004, only lump sum amount is payable in eligible cases as per the scheme approved by the Board, as annexed t hereto. It also requires displaying of the copy of the Circular in the notice bo ard. The whole object of granting one lump sum amount to the family of the deceased e mployee was to enable the family to tide over pre-mature death. Though it is not as a matter of right, it is a relief against destitution and it is in the afore said backdrop, the case of the petitioner has to be considered on the admitted f acts of the case vis-a-vis rejection of her claim on the ground of delay of lodg ing of the claim. The period in which the application is to be made is laid down as follows: Time for submission of Application: 3. In the above cases [excepting item No.2(iv) above], ex-gratia amount sha ll be paid to the family of the employee, if eligible and if requested for withi n 6(six) months from the date of death of the employee. Employee seeking prematu re retirement due to incapacitation shall have to request for availing of the be nefits under the scheme on being declared physically totally incapacitated by re cognized hospital authority approved by the bank as per extant bank’s guidelines . One admitted fact is that the application filed by the petitioner for compassion ate appointment was filed within a period of 4 months from the date of her husba nd’s death. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was allowed to work at a paultry sum of Rs.70/- a day, albeit for a short period. The other undisputed fact is there was no communication to the petitioner reject ing such application for compassionate appointment. Even if a claim is not tenab le and is rejected, the authorities of the Bank is duty-bound to communicate the decision of rejection and it cannot be countenanced that stoic silence of the B ank will enable the applicant to know the fate of the application. According to the perception of this Court, the Bank has taken a hair-splitting stand, which i s too technical in nature, and which does not advance the avowed cause for which the scheme was framed in the first place. If the petitioner had not made any application for compassionate help within 6 m onths but had made an application, say after 2/3 years, the stand of the Bank, h aving regard to object of the scheme, may have been justified. The scheme was in troduced in the last part of year 2005 and husband of the petitioner died on 27. 07.2006. When the application for compassionate appointment was, per se, not ent ertainable, why the petitioner was not told then and there and apprised about th e new scheme? Or, are we to assume that functionaries at the Branch level was al so not aware of the scheme of 2005? In the affidavit, it is stated that it is no t the duty of the Manager to visit the residence of the deceased employee and ex plain about the scheme. Nobody is asking the Manager to do so. But surely the pe titioner could have been told about the new scheme when she had made endless vis its to the Bank and was also employed temporarily. The factual scenario that has emerged demands invocation of spirit of the scheme and the Court is not to be t ied down by cold letters. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be sub-served if the impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued to th e respondents to consider her application dated 07.01.2010 on merits and dispose of the same within a period of 2 months from to-day with a communication in wri ting to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitioner is allowed.