- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14-11-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting his claim for compensation and out of turn promotion. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him a cash award of Rs. 50,000 and also three increments in his scheduled time scheme.
(2.) IN brief, the case of the petitioner is that in 1998, he was posted as a Branch Manager, Muerson Branch, police station Utraon, District Allahabad and was residing at village Kehra, which is about 3 kms. away from the Bank's Branch. On 9-8-1990, the petitioner, while on his way to the Branch Office from his residence, at about 10. 00 a. m. , two persons riding scooter intercepted him and asked to hand over keys of the Branch. On resistance, the aforesaid persons fired on the petitioner causing gun shot injuries whereafter the said persons fled away. A first information report was lodged at P. S. Sarai INayat, Tahasil Phoolpur, District Allahabad. The petitioner being grievously injured was hospitalized in Swaroop Ram Medical College where he remained till 22-9-1990. Pursuant to the scheme of the Government providing for compensation and award to the Bank employees who have sustained injuries, he represented the matter to the Bank which was not considered whereafter he preferred Writ Petition No. 13135 of 1995 which was allowed by order dated 8-9-2000 directing the respondents to consider petitioner's claim in accordance with the scheme of the Government and if the petitioner is entitled to the relief under the said scheme to provide the same expeditiously. However, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide order impugned in the said writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the letter dated 29-8-1987, Annexure-8 to the writ petition communicated by the Adhayaksh of the Bank stating that if a Bank employee has sustained severe injuries, he would be entitled for a cash award of Rs. 50,000/- and also out of turn promotion to the next higher grade provided he fulfill minimum eligibility qualifications for such promotion and otherwise, he would be granted three increments in his existing pay scale. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 has erred in law by rejecting his claim though he is entitled for the benefits as provided in letter dated 29-8-1987. However, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. The letter dated 29-8-1987 is a communication by the Chairman of Regional Rural Bank stating that the Board of Director of the Bank has approved to implement the scheme promulgated by the Government of India for rewarding Bank Employees, who have resisted Dacoits/robbers. Therefore, the letter dated 29-8-1987 by itself cannot be said to be the entire and wholesome scheme but has to be read with the Government of India Scheme which has been implemented by the Bank. A copy of the said scheme dated 6-3-1987 has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and the very subject of the said circular reads as under : "sub : Payment of compensation to persons killed/injured by dacoits/robbers in the bank's premises Scheme thereof. (Emphasis added) A perusal of the entire circular also shows where a bank employee has sustained injury in the Bank premises resisting dacoits/robbers they would be awarded in the manner provided in the scheme promulgated by the Government of India. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he did not sustain any injury in the bank premises and on the contrary that he sustained injuries while he was on the way from his residence to the Bank. On the face of it, the scheme of Government of India as contained in the circular dated 6-3-1987 does not apply to the case in hand. The rational of the said scheme is easily understandable. If a Bank employee shows extraordinary courage and resist dacoits and robbers in their attempt to prevent loss to the bank property in the bank premises, such bank employee may be awarded so that it may encourage the bank employees to show brevity for saving bank property from being looted by such unscrupulous persons. However, if contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted that a bank employee if sustain injuries anywhere and the said scheme is not confined to the bank premises, it would mean that if a bank employee has sustained some injuries in some other city, some other state or in an incident, wholly unconnected with the bank, even then he would be rewarded. The same is wholly illogical and cannot be accepted at all. However, we do not make any further comment on this issue since the scheme itself is very clear as it is confined to the injuries sustained by the bank employee in bank premises and not outside the bank premises. Therefore, we find that the said scheme does not apply in the case in hand entitling the petitioner for any reward under the said scheme. The respondent have not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
(3.) THE writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;