IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5020 of 2009 Shakuntla Devi, w/o- Late Prem Nath Singh, r/o- village Hansrajpur, P.S.- Baniyapur, District- Saran at Chapra. ……………… Petitioner Versus 1. The Gramin Bank Of India through the General Manager, Central Office, Central Bank of India, R.R.B. Cell, Mumbai. 2. The Chairman/Zonal Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Head Office Kalambag Chowk, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Zonal Manager Gramin Bank Area Office, Chapra. … Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Bashishtha Narain Mishra, Advocate For the Bank : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 4 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. The respondents have filed counter affidavit to which rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner was serving the establishment earlier known as Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank (now known as Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank) (for short the Bank). Sometimes in the year 2005, the husband of the petitioner died while in harness. She made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The then guidelines/circular of the Bank (Annexure-2) provided for such appointment on compassionate ground in Class-III or Class IV post. The respondent Bank, considering the eligibility and other relevant circumstances, offered the petitioner a Class-IV post (Messenger-cum-Sweeper) as would appear from Annexure-1. The petitioner did not join the post. Instead, she made an application for extending the period of joining. The respondent Bank, considering the said request, extended the period of her 2 joining on the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper by six months. The petitioner again made a representation for considering her case for appointment on any appropriate Class-III post. Such claim was raised on the strength of a certificate of Up-Shastri acquired by the petitioner from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. All these had happened in the year 2006. Three years later, the writ petition was filed in this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent Bank to appoint her on the post of Clerk or any Class III posts in the respondent Bank. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was/is always ready and willing to join Class III post, if offered to her by the respondent Bank. It is also contended that the claim of the petitioner for considering her case for appointment on Class-III post has remained pending as would appear from the different documents enclosed along with the supplementary affidavits. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, takes a stand that in the year 2006 itself, on the request of the petitioner, the period of joining on the offered post (Class-IV post) was extended by 06 months, yet the petitioner did not join the said post and as such the said offer to the petitioner also lost its force. If the offer is not accepted within the reasonable time, the respondent Bank cannot keep the matter pending for indefinite period of time. It is also contended that as on today, the scheme of grant of compassionate appointment is substituted by another scheme whereunder such dependent of the employee is entitled to grant of Ex-gratia payment. Mr. Jha 3 states that if the petitioner is willing to get benefit under the said scheme then she is required to make an application within a reasonable period of time in a format and the respondent Bank shall consider her claim in accordance with the said scheme. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent Bank, states that the petitioner would make such an application within four weeks from today. It is contended that the respondent Bank may be directed to consider and dispose of her application for grant of Ex-gratia payment in accordance with the amended scheme within a reasonable period of time since the petitioner is in urgent need of monetary help in order to discharge her liabilities. Having heard the parties and on going through the materials on record including the writ petition, the supplementary affidavit(s), the rejoinder as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank, it appears that the offer made by the respondent Bank to the petitioner to join on a Class-IV post (Annexure-1) was not accepted by the petitioner. She althrough insisted on being appointed on Class III post. It appears that the respondent Bank ultimately extended period of her joining on Class IV post by six months. The aforesaid extension was also not utilized by the petitioner. As on today, the scheme of grant of compassionate appointment no longer exists. It is well settled that in such matter, the respondent Bank can be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the existing scheme. 4 Mr. Jha learned counsel for the respondent Bank has already taken a stand that if any such application is filed by the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia payment under the amended scheme, the respondent Bank shall consider her claim in accordance with law. The petitioner has also taken a stand that she would file an application for grant of ex-gratia payment as per the amended scheme adopted by the Bank. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the application in the following manner: Let the petitioner file a claim/representation for grant of Ex-gratia payment to her on account of death of her husband in harness within four (04) weeks from today. The respondent Bank is directed to consider and dispose of her claim/representation on merit in accordance with the amended scheme of grant of Ex-gratia payment in place of compassionate appointment within a period of eight weeks of its filing. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)