Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1279
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Bidami Devi – Appellant
Versus
Bank Of Baroda & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18629/2015
Decided On : 29-11-2022
Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, Adv., for the Petitioner
Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi, Adv., for the Respondent
Proper assessment of income and liabilities is crucial in determining eligibility for ex-gratia financial relief.
Headnote:
ex-gratia relief - Financial Relief - Circular dated 12.11.2007 - Scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount - Calculation of monthly income - Deduction of loans from liabilities - Interest on post retiral terminal benefits - Proper computation of income - Proper assessment of income - Discretionary scheme - Proper calculation of agricultural income - Proper calculation of interest - Proper consideration of scheme for ex-gratia financial aid - Order dated 05.07.2014 set aside
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the denial of ex-gratia financial relief on account of her husband's death. The petitioner's husband was employed at the respondent-Bank and died in 2013. The petitioner claimed that she was entitled to ex-gratia relief as per a circular issued by the bank in 2007. The respondents denied her claim, stating that her family had sufficient income. The petitioner contested the calculation of her income and liabilities, and the court was asked to consider the proper computation of her income and liabilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the calculation of the petitioner's income and liabilities was not properly assessed by the respondents. The court set aside the order denying the petitioner's claim and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case based on the proper computation of her income and liabilities.
Issues: Calculation of monthly income - Deduction of loans from liabilities - Proper computation of income - Proper assessment of income - Proper consideration of scheme for ex-gratia financial aid
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the calculation of the petitioner's income and liabilities should be properly assessed as per the scheme for ex-gratia financial aid. The court also emphasized the proper computation of income and the deduction of loans from liabilities.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order denying the petitioner's claim and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case based on the proper computation of her income and liabilities.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 05.07.2014, whereby the petitioner has been denied benefits of ex-gratia financial relief on account of death of petitioner's husband.
2. The facts pleaded in the writ petition in nutshell are that the husband of the petitioner was working in the respondent-Bank after his appointment on 04.04.1983 as "Daftari" and he died on 28.12.2013.
3. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents had issued a circular dated 12.11.2007, introducing a scheme for payment of exgratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground or appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that she had submitted an application dated 09.04.2014 for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, however, by the impugned communication dated 05.04.2014, it was informed to the petitioner that her claim was rejected, as the ex-gratia amount was not to be given to her, as the family of the deceased was having sufficient sources of income because estimated monthly income was more than 60% of the salary (last drawn salary) of deceased-husband of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has pleaded that she had submitted an application to the Regional Manager of the Bank and Dy. General Manager, requesting them that there was no agricultural income of the petitioner and as such, the assessment was not correctly made by the Authorities while calculating the income of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has further pleaded that the communication dated 27.08.2014 was received from Dy. General Manager, informing that the agricultural income of the petitioner was not taken into consideration but the terminal benefits of Rs.12,67,963/- were taken into account and the total liabilities of Rs.4,48,038/- were deducted and as such, net income of the petitioner came to Rs.8,19,925/-.
7. The petitioner has pleaded that she again submitted an application before the Dy. General Manager that the expected income of the petitioner was wrongly assessed as Rs.6,662/- and according to the Bank statement, from 02.11.2013 to 30.04.2014, the interest of five months was Rs.6,509/- and as such, income from the interest was about Rs.1,302/- per month.
8. The petitioner has pleaded that she was again in receipt of a communication dated 16.12.2014, whereby she was informed that application of the petitioner was processed in terms of provisions of the scheme and it was found that the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
9. The petitioner has further pleaded that there were other liabilities, including Education Loan, taken by son of the petitioner, namely, Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Gurjar and Kisan Credit Card loan was also taken by the petitioner herself and as such, along with the petition, statement of accounts has been filed as Annexures-10 & 11. The petitioner has pleaded that due amount of Rs.2,37,893/- in the Education Loan and Rs.2,53,623/- in the Kisan Credit Card loan was required to be deducted and as such, the Authorities did not take into account the expected income of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has pleaded that she again requested the Authorities to consider her case but no response was received and as such, after serving a notice for demand of justice, the instant petition has been filed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Satyapal Poshwal submitted that the scheme, introduced by the respondent-Bank, has provided the basis of computation of monthly family income and in the category of liabilities, the loans taken from the Bank or other financial institutions with the prior approval of the Bank are required to be considered and as such, the respondents, while making calculation of monthly income, have not deducted the aforesaid two loans and accordingly, income of the petitioner has not been properly assessed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitte
