- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper - book.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, who was working with the respondents -Bank died in a road accident on 1.5.2005. After his death, the petitioner has been sanctioned family pension in the amount of Rs. 2329+DA. Thereafter, she made an application that appointment on compassionate grounds be given to any one of her three sons. On 22.10.2005, the petitioner was informed by the Bank that the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds has been superseded by a scheme for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 4.3.2005. She was advised that her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds will be considered under the revised scheme. The petitioner has been denied the benefit of ex gratia compensation as well as the appointment on compassionate grounds since the income of the family of the deceased husband was more than 60% of the last pay drawn by the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny that on the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner has received a total amount of Rs. 5,56,938.85 -14,311.85 = 5,42,567.00. The amounts paid to the petitioner and the income of the family are as under : - "C. Details of Assets and Liabilities : - (a) Immovable Property (i) House (a) Market value 3.5 lakhs (ii) Land (b) Monthly income,, if any NIL (b) xx xx (c) Details of dues settled by Bank : Dues Amount Outstanding Loans Amount (Payable/ Paid) (Rs.) Provident Fund 1,27,567.57 Housing Loan - Gratuity 1,19,848.85 Consumer/Personal Loan - Leave Encashment 78,833.00 Clean OD 8,871.85 Adhoc Grant from Welfare Trust 1,50,000.00 Festival Advance 5,500.00 Accidental Insurance Vehicle Grant from Welfare Society Society Loan with bank's permission Others,, if any 30,689.43 59,000.00 Total (A) 5,56,938.85 Total (B) 14,311.85 (d) Net amount received from Bank (A -B) = 556938.85 -14311.85 = Rs. 542567.00 (e) Details of other investments : xxx xxx xxx xxx Net amount received = NIL (d) Details of family income : (a) Family Pension (Total of Basic + DA) 2329+1595.37 = Rs. 3924.37 (b) Army Pension (Total of Basic +DA), xx (c) xx, xx (d) xx, xx The petitioner would be entitled to the ex gratia amount only if the family fulfils the conditions laid down in Clause 8 of the Scheme for Payment of ex gratia (Lump -Sum Amount) contained in Annexure A of Circular No. Per/62/27/2005/38 dated 5.5.2005. The aforesaid Clause is as under : - "8. Procedure for Calculation of Ex gratia Amount : Ex gratia may be granted to the family of the employee in the manner and subject to the ceilings specified below, if the monthly income of the family from all sources is less than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of taxes) of the employee."
(3.) AS noticed above, the claim for ex gratia payment has been rejected as the income of the family from all sources is more than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of taxes) of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the aforesaid amount cannot be taken into consideration by the respondents while considering the claim of the petitioner as the petitioner was entitled to receive the same as statutory dues. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are, however, of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) SCT 174 (SC) : 1994(4) SCC 138, wherein it has been observed as under : - "As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood." The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, 2007(2) S.C.T. 226 : 2007(1) R.A.J. 901, [Appeal (Civil) No. 409 of 2007 decided on 1.2.2007]. In this case, the Supreme Court was considering the facts and circumstances which are almost identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of the Scheme that was circulated by the Oriental Bank of Commerce vide Circular No. Per/53/75/96/184 dated 16.9.1996. The aforesaid Scheme has been superseded by the aforesaid Scheme dated 5.5.2005. As noticed earlier, under this Scheme, there is no provision for providing employment on compassionate grounds. It was replaced by the Scheme for payment of ex gratia amount. The petitioner would have been eligible to receive the ex gratia amount under the aforesaid Clause 8. Considering the claim of the petitioner under the aforesaid Scheme, the respondents have rejected the same on the ground that the present income of the family was more than 60% of the last pay drawn salary (net of taxes) of the deceased employee. On 13.9.2006, the Bank has issued a last pay drawn Certificate of the deceased which shows that in the month of April, 2005, he had been paid a net salary of Rs. 7,706.78. A perusal of the table reproduced above would also show that the petitioner was in receipt of Rs. 3,924.37 as family pension. Therefore, in our view, the claim of the petitioner for ex gratia payment has been rightly rejected under Clause 8 of the Ex gratia Scheme. In the case of State Bank of India and others (supra), the Supreme Court considered a similar Scheme made by the State Bank of India. In that case, the family of the deceased employee consisted of a widow, twin daughters and one son. The financial condition of the family was as under : - "(a) a sum of Rs. 4,57,607/ - as terminal benefit has been paid (after deducting Rs. 19,183/ - towards liabilities); (b) a sum of Rs. 2,055/ - p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme. (c) The total monthly income of the family comes to Rs. 5,855/ - (monthly pension of Rs. 2055/ -+Rs. 3800/ -) p.m. As notional interest on the investment of Rs. 4,57,607/ -)." ;