SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) LATE Kabul Chand, who was employed with the appellant-bank, passed away on 24.12.2005 in an accident while attending to his duties when he still had more than 30 years of service leaving behind a hapless widow aged 27 years to look after a son aged 9 years and two daughters aged 5 years and 3 years, respectively. The grant of payment under Ex-gratia Scheme of the appellant-bank has, however, survived for almost 9 years. The amount has since been paid as held entitled by the learned single Judge in terms of the impugned order dated 4.5.2009 and interim stay was declined in the present appeal. Resultantly, what the appellant-bank is claiming is recovery of this amount paid for the benefit of the widow and the minor children.
(2.) THE impugned order is an exhaustive one dealing with both the issues of compassionate employment and ex-gratia payment. Shorn of details, under the then prevailing scheme formulated by the appellant- bank in pursuance to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the respondent was held entitled to ex-gratia payment. It is, however, the case of the appellant-bank that the norm laid down in the Scheme for obtaining such an ex-gratia payment of monthly income of the family from all sources being less than 60 per cent of the last-drawn salary (net of taxes) was not satisfied in the present case as the learned single Judge has wrongfully excluded the family pension and notional interest on terminal benefits from calculation of such monthly income. The aforesaid is, thus, the only controversy which is being called upon to be adjudicated in the present appeal, as prayed for by learned counsel for the appellants.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contends that both the aforesaid elements were required to be included in the computation of monthly income. In this behalf, learned counsel has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in General Manager (D&PB) and others vs. Kunti Tiwary and another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 271, Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 265 and State Bank of India and others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 571. It was held in the first judgment that the High Court could not have diluted the criterion of penury to one of "not very well-to-do" in directing compassionate appointment. In the second judgment, it was clarified that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment, but merely an exception to recruitment with the intent that on the death of an employee the concerned family is not deprived of means of livelihood. The view of the High Court that retiral benefits were not to be taken into consideration while dealing with request for compassionate appointment was negated. In the last of the three judgments referred to, it was observed that family pension as a component has to be included in the computation of income.;