Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
The petitioner is the wife of deceased employee Sandeep Srivastava, who died in harness on 12.9.2003, and has two minor sons. The deceased employee was posted at Deoria with the respondent-bank as clerk/cashier. On death, the respondent-bank, provided the family terminal dues of Rs. 2,83,269.50/- and family pension of Rs. 4,051/- per month, besides the above, the deceased left behind liabilities of about 5 lacs including consumer/personal loans and medical expenses.
The petitioner claims that since she is unemployed and has two minor children who are school going and, the family pension would be reduced to Rs. 2,000/- per month after 7 years, therefore, she be appointed on compassionate grounds as per the bank's policy for employment of dependents of the employees, who die during service of the bank. The petitioner claims that she is graduate and qualified for the job.
The petitioner was communicated by letter dated 21.9.2004, issued by the Bank, that as per the directions of the Head Office the case of the petitioner for appointed on compassionate ground has been rejected.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved a representation to the Bank to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground, which vide letter dated 19.2.2005, the petitioner was informed, that since the scheme has been discontinued for appointed on compassionate ground, therefore, it is not possible to reconsider the decision already taken. Aggrieved by the orders dated 21.9.2004 and 19.2.2005 the petitioner has approached this Court.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied, before coming into force of the modified scheme for payment of ex gratia in lieu of appointment on compassionate basis. The scheme was enforced on 29.10.2004 whereas the petitioner's application is much earlier to the said scheme. It was wrong for the bank to say that the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is not indigent.
In rebuttal the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of appointment under the scheme, whereas, the object of the scheme is to grant compassionate appointment in case, the family is without any means of livelihood. The object of the scheme is as follows:-
"The object of the scheme is to consider the compassionate employment to the dependent of an employee dying in harness leaving his family without any means of livelihood. Mere death of an employee in harness would not however, entitle his dependents to such employment only in such cases where it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is such that but for the provisions of employment to his dependent, the family will not be able to meet the crises it faces at the time of death of the said employee."
On rival submissions, the only question to be determined is, as to whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was wrongly rejected and whether the prayer for reconsideration under the modified scheme is permissible once a claim has been rejected.
Considering the financial condition of the family as on 2.9.2003 i.e. the date of death of the deceased employee, the General Manager of the respondent-Punjab National Bank was of the view that the petitioner's case does not fall for grant of compassionate appointment as family is not indigent. The family is receiving family pension of Rs. 4051/- per month and terminal benefits of Rs. 2,83,269/- was provided. In the opinion of the Bank that is sufficient to tide over the financial crisis.
The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ashwani Kumar Teneja (2004) 7 SCC 265 held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of making appointments on open invitation of applications on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned, his family is not deprived of the means of their livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises. The Court held that retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the prayer for compassionate appointment.
In State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 1 ESC 66 (Supreme Court) the Court held, the major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate ground should be financial conditions of the family, the deceased person has left behind. Unless financial conditions is entirely penury such appointments cannot be made in the instant case, the family pension was Rs. 2055/- per month, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the rejection order.
In State Bank of India vs. Somveer Singh (2007) 4 SCC 778 the Court again reiterated that financial condition of the deceased employee's family should be the important criterion for eligibility of compassionate appointment. The High Court cannot undertake any exercise to decide as to what would the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival and whether his family is in penury or without any means of livelihood. The High Court can only advert to itself to review the decision making process and not the decision.
The similar view was held in Doiwala Sugar Comp. Ltd. vs. Manjeet Singh Negi (2006) 9 SCC 381. The Court held that the High Court cannot direct appointment on compassionate ground but can only remand the matter for purposes of consideration by the Competent Authority.
In State Bank of India vs. Vikas Dubey and others (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 585 Court held that the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the bank and in the meantime, a new scheme having come into operation. The respondent filed another representation for reconsideration of his case under the new scheme which was also rejected. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court directing reconsideration under the old scheme.
In State Bank of India vs. Raj Kamal Nigam (2003) 7 SCC 704 the Supreme Court held that the Court cannot order for appointment on compassionate ground dehors the statutory policy. The logic of the policy cannot be undermined. Refer i.) LIC vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandran AIR 1994 SC 2148, ii.) I.G. (Karmik) and others vs. Prahlad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162, iii.) G.M. State Bank of India vs. Anju Jain (2008) 4 SCC 778.
A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 14 of 2007, State Bank of India through Chairman and others vs. Ajay Kumar has set aside the order of learned Single Judge directing the Bank that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground that the heirs of the deceased employee have been extended terminal benefits and family benefits. Mandamus was issued to the respondent Bank to consider the appellants for appointment on the suitable post.
Applying the law stated, herein above, on the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the decision of the bank is against their policy existing on the date on which the decision was taken i.e. 21.9.2004. The policy clearly states "Mere death of an employee in harness would not however, entitle his dependents to such employment only in such cases where it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is such that but for the provisions of employment to his dependent, the family will not be able to meet the crises it faces at the time of death of the said employee." The Bank taking into account the family pension and terminal benefits was of the opinion that it was sufficient to tide over the financial crisis.
The Policy for compassionate appointment was modified by the Bank on 29.10.2004 and instead of providing for compassionate appointment lump-sum exgratia payment was provided. The subsequent representation of the petitioner was not considered, as the bank vide letter dated 19.2.2005, informed the petitioner that the policy of compassionate appointment has been discontinued. The petitioner's application was rejected and it could not have been reconsidered after the modified scheme came into force i.e. 29.10.2004, as per para 9 of the scheme which is as follows:
"9. The Other General Conditions:
The other general conditions of the scheme are as under:-
9.1. ...........................
9.2. ...........................
9.3. ...........................
9.4. ...........................
9.5. ...........................
9.6. The Scheme will come into force from the date it is approved by the Board of the bank and all applications for compassionate appointment pending as on the effective date i.e. 29.10.2004 will be dealt with in accordance with the above Scheme approved by the Board."
It is settled principle of law that the law/policy/scheme on the date of decision/disposal of the application shall be applicable. Law applicable on the date of filing is not relevant, the law applicable on the date of decision is relevant. (Vide Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Shimla vs. Prem Lata Sood and others (2007) 11 SCC 40, Union of India and others vs. Indian Charge Chrome and Another (1999) 7 SCC 314, Kuldeep Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 5 SCC 702).
In this context we may usefully refer to the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India vs. R. Padmanabhan 2003 (7) SCC 270, wherein this Court observed:
"That apart, being ex gratia, no right accrues to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the Guidelines and Policy, in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the Scheme itself. The line of decisions relation to vested rights accrued being protected from any subsequent amendments may not be relevant for such a situation and it would be apposite to advert to the decision of this Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Hind Stone and Ors. - 1981 (2) SCC 205. That was a case wherein this Court had to consider the claims of lessees for renewal of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The High Court was of the view that it was not open to the State Government to keep the time and then depose them of on the basis of a rule which had come into force later. This Court, while reversing such view taken by the High Court, held that in the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application, despite the delay, if any, involved although it is desirable to dispose of the applications, expeditiously."
We may also refer to the decision of Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh vs. Government of NCT of Delhi [2006 (5) SCC 702] which considered the question of grant of liquor vent licences. The Supreme Court held that where applications required processing and verification the policy which should be applicable is the one which is prevalent on the date of grant and not the one which was prevalent when the application was filed. The Apex Court clarified that the exception to the said rule is where a right had already accrued or vested in the applicant, before the change of policy.
For the reasons and law stated, herein above, the petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order to costs.
Order Date :- 31.03.2014 S.Prakash