JUDGMENT

Soumitra Saikia, J. - Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel represents the appellants, State Bank of India and Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel represents the respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India being aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 11-12-2018, passed in WP(C) No. 3683/2016. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to the appellant Bank to grant the benefit of Ex-gratia payment subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 14 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, which is applicable to employees, who die-in-harness on or after 04-08-2005.

3. The respondent is the brother of late Naba Kumar Gupta, who during his service as a Cashier-cum-Clerk in Arunachal Branch of State Bank of India at the age of 28 years committed suicide, on 04-01-2003. The deceased employee left behind his mother Smt. Smriti Gupta and the petitioner, who is the younger brother of the deceased.

4. Soon after the death of his brother, the respondent applied to the appellant/Bank seeking employment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme. The respondent claimed to be a dependent of the deceased employee under the 'die-in-harness' scheme. The appellant/Bank withdrew the earlier Scheme for Compassionate Appointment and in lieu thereof, a Scheme for payment of Ex-gratia lump sum was introduced with effect from 04-08-2005 and requested the respondent-petitioner vide Communication dated 27-03- 2007 to submit application in prescribed format accordingly.

5. The petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid Communication in view of the fact that at the time of submission of his application dated 16-01-2003 seeking compassionate appointment during the subsistence of the earlier Scheme, the payment of Ex-gratia lump sum amount under the new Scheme was not applicable to him. He, therefore, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2769/2007 with a prayer to issue a direction to appoint him to a suitable post in accordance with the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment. The appellant Bank contested the writ petition by filing their affidavit-in-opposition wherein they pointed out that the mother of the petitioner was receiving SBI family pension from Silchar Branch amounting to Rs.2611/- in January, 2003 and another pension @ Rs.5751/- per month from the Department of BSNL and that she has property worth Rs.10 Lakhs.

6. The Honble Court by order, dated 06-08-2013, passed in WP(C) No. 2769/2007, disposed of the writ petition. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition can no longer be granted. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has the option to claim lump sum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment under the (new) Scheme. The learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to file fresh application as per the prescribed form to the respondent Bank for the admissible lump sum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment within a period of one month from the date of the order. The Bank was also directed to consider the application on merit and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

7. No appeal was preferred against the order dated 06-08-2013. Rather, in deference to the order dated 06-08-2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2769/2007 the respondent preferred an application on 06-09-2013 to the appellant/Bank.

8. The appellant/Bank, by communication dated 16-01-2014, informed the respondent- petitioner that the application for payment of Ex-gratia lump sum amount is being returned by the Controlling Office of the appellant Bank with a reason that payment of Ex-gratia lump sum amount is payable to the family members of the employee, who died on or after 04-08- 2005. It was informed that since the respondents late brother expired on 04-01-2003 and as such, the applicant, namely, the respondent-petitioner is not eligible for any such payment.