The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scheme in force at the time of the employee's death is applicable for compassionate appointment, and the conditions stipulated in the scheme must be followed for entitlement to ex-gratia compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Both these appeals were directed to be heard side by side vide order dated 17.02.2020 on the basis of the submission made on behalf of Respondent No.1 that another intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No.704 of 2019 has been preferred against the impugned order by the respondent-Bank. Accordingly, both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Both these intra-court appeals, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the order/judgment dated 06.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 1663 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the impugned orders dated 01.02.2011 and 31.08.2015 have been quashed with a direction upon the respondent-Bank to act in view of the provisions or scheme dated 09.04.2008 and release the ex-gratia amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceedings, which are required to be enumerated, read as under :-

The husband of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent Bank as Head Cashier in Satsangnagar, Deoghar Branch, died in harness on 04.12.2010. The writ petitioner applied for appointment on 04.01.2011. The writ petitioner was intimated by order dated 01.02.2011 that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is no more prevalent in the Bank and it has been substituted by the scheme of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. The ex-gratia amount has also been refused to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner on the ground that the total monthly income of the family of the deceased employee arrived at is more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary.

The writ petitioner preferred this writ petition against the aforesaid order dated 01.02.2011. The Bank, in the meanwhile, came out with a new scheme dated 08.04.2015 whereby the sole scheme has been substituted with the new scheme containing a provision of compassionate appointment as well as the payment of ex-gratia amount.

The writ petitioner again approached the respondent Bank to provide relief in view of the new scheme but the same was negated vide communication dated 31.08.2015. Therefore, by filing an interlocutory application amendment in the relief portion of the writ petition was sought for.

The writ petitioner took the plea before the learned Single Judge that the rejection of the claim of payment of ex-gratia amount in view of the scheme dated 09.04.2008 cannot be said to be proper since the matter was pending before the respondent-Bank and, as such, the case of the writ petitioner was fit to be considered under the new scheme dated 08.04.2015.

The learned Single Judge has framed the issue as to under which scheme the case of the writ petitioner needs to be considered and accordingly, by considering Clause-5 and 6 of the new scheme which contains a cut-off date i.e., 05.08.2014 and the husband of the writ petitioner died on 04.12.2010 which is much prior to the cut-off date and, as such, came to a conclusive finding to the effect that the case of the writ petitioner falls under the old scheme. But, the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding about rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner under the old scheme is not tenable as the bank has taken part of income from the employee under the scheme by depositing the lump sum amount in the name of provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, calculating monthly income of the family of the deceased employee to be more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has found the aforesaid calculation to be incorrect by taking into consideration the fact about payment of pensionery benefit to be not a charity and as such the impugned