- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikey Saran, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent-Bank.
(2.) Undisputed facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under : Husband of the petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank, died in a road accident on 26.10.2009 in harness leaving behind the petitioner and one minor daughter. Petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 3.7.2010 which was rejected on 9.7.2010 on the ground that under the scheme enforced in Bank for compassionate appointment, there is a provision for making ex-gratia payment and since a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs has already been paid as ex-gratia, she was not liable to be given compassionate appointment. Respondent-Bank has framed a scheme known as 'Revised Model Scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds & appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds'. The said scheme has been framed and enforced by the Bank in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 3 JT 525, and was enforced on 29.12.2008 etrospectively with effect from 31.7.2004 and all cases of death occurring after the said date are to be dealt with according to the provisions of the scheme. It is not in dispute that on the date of death of husband of petitioner the scheme was in force. Scheme specifies the case where ex-gratia payment is to be made and where compassionate appointment is to be given. Clause 4 (A) of the scheme providing for grant of ex-gratia reads as under : "4 (A) The Scheme for grant of ex-gratia will be applicable in the following cases of employees : (i) Employee dying in harness (other than due to injury sustained while performing official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity). (ii) Employee dying due to injury sustained while performing official duty within or outside office premises (other than due to violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and excluding travel from residence to place of work and back). (iii) Employee seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. Similarly Clause 4 (B) provides for compassionate appointment. The said clause reads as under :" "4 (B) The Scheme of Compassionate Appointment will be applicable in the following cases : (a) Employee dying while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity. (b) Employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children."
(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that mere grant of ex-gratia amount does not dis-entitle the petitioner from claiming compassionate appointment as the scheme provides for the same. IT has further been submitted that petitioner never made any application for ex-gratia and the payment has been made without her consent as such the same would not dis-entitle her from claiming compassionate appointment. In reply, it has been submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be made in accordance with the scheme enforced by the bank and the case of the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of the scheme providing for compassionate appointment, rather she was entitled for payment of ex-gratia amount under the said scheme which has been paid to her.;