Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6447 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sajal Khanna Respondent :- State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman, Mumbai And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent Bank.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 18.6.2018 passed by Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Town Hall, Shahjahanpur, informing the petitioner that upon death of his father, he shall be entitled to payment of ex- gratia, as he does not fulfil the conditions laid down in relevant bank circular/order for grant of compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment in conformity with the Scheme sponsored by Central Government for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Bank through Circular of the Ministry dated 7.8.2014.
Sri Satish Chaturvedi, in his turn, submits that Government Circular issued by Ministry of Finance on 7.8.2014, is not binding on the State Bank and therefore, no indulgence can be shown in the matter, once admittedly, State Bank of India issued a memorandum for the Executive Committee of the Central Board in the background of letter no. D.O.F. 18/02/2013- IR dated 7.8.2014, of Government of India, and has retreated its position that the Bank proposes to proceed in the matter as per the conditions mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said memorandum and the said memorandum has been approved by the Board of State Bank of India, as has been mentioned by the Deputy Managing Director, Corporate Development Officer of State Bank of India, Personnel Management Department and Corporate Centre, 2014.
It is not disputed that this proposal was approved by the concerned directors of the Executive Committee and therefore, petitioner's contention that Government of India Scheme dated 7.8.2014 will be applicable, has no basis, specially when Indian Banks' Association had taken a decision on 11th August 2014, to open the compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks on the lines of Central Government and discontinue the provision of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks. It is submitted that once the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, department of financial services vide D.O. dated 5th December, 2014, addressed to the Chairman, Indian Banks' Association, Mumbai, agreed to the proposal that Public Sector Banks can have both the options that is compassionate appointment or payment of lum-psum ex- gratia amount and therefore, State Bank of India, adopting the Scheme through approval of directors of the Executive Committee dated 10th December, 2014, prescribing certain conditions for grant of compassionate appointment as are mentioned in paragraph 3 or, in the alternative, payment of ex- gratia, which has been revised with effect from 5.8.2014, such memorandum of State Bank of India cannot be faulted with.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, it is evident that vide DO dated 5th December, 2014, Ministry of Finance permitted the Indian Banks' Association to have Scheme of compassionate appointment or payment of lump-sum ex-gratia amount.
Interpretation of word "or" is discussed by the Apex Court and has held that :-
"Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products and others vs. Union of India and others (2000) 1 SCC 426, wherein it is held that 'or' in its natural sense denotes an 'alternative' and is not read as 'substitutive'. The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and 'and' is normally conjunctive.
Therefore, once an option was given by the Ministry of Finance to the Indian Banks' Association and in consonance of said D.O., State Bank of India has prepared a memorandum and that memorandum in regard to provisions in lieu of it, payment of ex-gratia has been approved by the Directors of the Executive Committee, then this Court is not required to travel beyond the said memorandum because law as has been laid down in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148, it is settled that Courts, while considering a matter for grant of compassionate appointment, are only required to look into the policy, which was in vogue at the time of consideration of the application and nothing more or less, as an employer cannot be compelled to make compassionate appointment contrary to the policy, therefore, when examined in the light of the memorandum prepared by the State Bank of India and approved by its Executive Committee, then it cannot be said that petitioner's case has not been dealt with in consonance of the said memorandum and impugned order dated 18.6.2018, being in consonance with the said memorandum cannot be faulted with.
This petition fails and is dismissed.
At this stage, it is clarified that since vide order dated 24.6.2019, while issuing notice to the respondents, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed that claim for payment of ex-gratia amount would be kept pending and would remain subject to the outcome of this writ petition, it is directed that let amount of ex- gratia be paid in full and final settlement to petitioner, without taking into consideration the fact that petition, for grant of compassionate appointment, has been dismissed on its own merit.
Let this exercise be completed within 30 days from today, as the order has been passed in presence of learned counsel for both the parties.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Shalini