Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This appeal is filed by the State Bank of India challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the Bank to consider the application made by the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount and to grant the same to the writ petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant-Bank addressed on various points with reference to the scheme under which compassionate appointments are made and also with reference to the new scheme of ex- gratia payment which replaced the scheme for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner also supported the judgment of the learned single Judge with reference to the scheme for compassionate appointment.
3. The writ petitioner is the widow of Shri A.Narayana Iyer, who died on 13/06/2001 while working as the Assistant Manager at Kollam Branch of the State Bank of India. She made an application for appointment as a clerk under the scheme for compassionate appointment, which was then in force. This application was made on 18/07/2001. The same was rejected by Ext.P3 taking note of the terminal benefits paid to the family of the deceased, after deducting all the liabilities. The competent authority of the Bank is of the view that the financial condition of the family of late Shri A.Narayana Iyer could not be termed as indigent as they have received a benefit of Rs.4.90 lakhs after deducting liabilities and they are also entitled for a monthly pension of Rs.7,569/-. This was done by the third respondent herein, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank. Thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent- Deputy General Manager of the Bank. In Ext.P4, she has claimed that after discharging the entire liabilities, the family of the deceased is left with only Rs.42,000/-. It is pin pointedly sketched in Ext.P4, the penurious circumstances the family are faced with, even after obtaining the retiral benefits. However, the second respondent, without adverting to any of such circumstances, rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. It is challenging the orders as above, the writ petition is filed.
4. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, it is stated that the financial condition of the family is to be determined on the basis of the family pension, gratuity amount received, provident fund, compensation amount paid by the Bank or its welfare fund, proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee, income from other sources, employment of the other family members and the size of the family and liabilities. It is further stated that the Bank has modified the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and
others [1994 (4) SCC 138]. The case of the Bank is that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises due to the death of the sole breadwinner and considering the retiral benefits received by the writ petitioner's family, the Bank cannot assume that they suffer from penurious conditions on account of the untimely death of the employee.
5. The learned single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition, as per the order dated 09/04/2013 directed the Chief General Manager to re-consider the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Accordingly, the Chief General Manager reconsidered her claim and passed an order on 20/05/2013 affirming the earlier order. The said order is produced by the Bank as Ext.R3(e). It is stated in Ext.R3(e) that upon re-verification of the assets and liabilities of the family of the deceased, it is clear that the family of the employee, who died in harness was not in penury or without any means of livelihood at the time of his death.
6. The learned single Judge, though without adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, by the impugned judgment, directed the bank to grant the benefit to the writ petitioner under the ex-gratia scheme since the scheme for appointment under compassionate grounds has been replaced by the ex-gratia scheme. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition also noted that the writ petitioner was aged 59 years and it may not be possible to give retrospective appointment.
7. The learned counsel for both sides relied on various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to compassionate appointment. We are of the view, the above pronouncements are not relevant in the light of the decision we are taking here, which is essentially based on facts.
8. The amended scheme of the Bank in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Umesh Kumar's case (supra) provides various factors which determine the financial condition of the family. One among such factors is the size of the family and verifiable liabilities, if any, (see - clause 10(viii) of the scheme produced as Ext.R3(c) in the writ petition). The consistent case of the writ petitioner, before the competent authority and also when appealed before the Deputy General Manger in Ext.P4, is that after adjusting the entire outstanding liabilities, the family of the deceased is only left with Rs.42,000/-. It is also stated by the writ petitioner that the father and mother of the deceased were aged 83 and 73 respectively and she requires not less than Rs.5,000/- per month for their maintenance and medical expenses. No where in the order rejecting the request for compassionate appointment, the authorities have adverted to the above factors. It is axiomatic to note that the authorities had focused only on the retiral benefits received by the family. The factors of the liabilities pleaded by her have been sidestepped and overlooked, while considering her request. It is not necessary always that the indigency or penurious circumstances, could be wiped out by merely receiving retiral benefits. The factors in determining the financial conditions mentioned in the scheme are not decisive in itself but only relevant for consideration within the scope of enquiry as to the circumstances under which the family is placed. It is to be noted that the scheme for compassionate appointment which was prevalent at the time of making the application by the writ petitioner would help only employees, who had left with liabilities after adjusting retiral benefits and will not help those employees, who were cautious in spending their income. The Bank has to take a realistic view while assessing the applications for compassionate appointments. The factors mentioned in the scheme are relevant when assessment is made objectively to find out whether the writ petitioner deserves appointment under compassionate grounds. It appears that the Bank had focused on the above factors without any direction to find out the penurious circumstances of the family, on the demise of the employee. This would have only been possible, had the authorities bestowed their attention to the factors regarding liabilities pointed out by the writ petitioner in Ext.P4. We are of the view that the competent authorities and the higher authorities have not taken any attempt to inquire about the factors of liabilities mentioned by the writ petitioner in Ext.P4. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the application made by the writ petitioner, deserves reconsideration, taking note of the factors mentioned in Ext.P4.
9. The scheme for appointment for the dependants of the deceased employee has been replaced by the scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount. This is with effect from 04/08/2005. It is stated in the circular issued by the Bank that all the applications pending for appointments on compassionate grounds as on the above date, will be dealt with in accordance with the new scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount, provided they fulfil all the terms and conditions of the scheme.
10. Of course, we are of the view that the learned single Judge should not have directed the Bank to grant the benefit under the scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount. We, therefore, modify the judgment of the learned single Judge by directing the Bank to reconsider the application made by the writ petitioner, with reference to the compassionate appointment scheme under the revised scheme for payment of ex-gratia and with reference to the circumstances of the writ petitioner as on the date of death of the deceased employee. With the above modification, we dismiss the writ appeal. The competent authority shall afford an opportunity to the writ petitioner or to her authorised representative before a final order is passed. The writ petitioner shall also place all relevant materials, if any available, before the Bank, as pointed out by her in Ext.P4. The competent authority shall dispose of the application and consider the request of the writ petitioner under ex-gratia scheme within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms