JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Order No.PRNL/72/2005-06 dt. 30.8.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to restore the benefit of compassionate appointment to the eligible dependants of the deceased employees in accordance with the Scheme that was prevalent when the employee died in harness.)

1. There are two petitioners in this writ petition, the first being the Indian Bank Employees' Union (‘Union’), and the second, Mrs.Shoba Muralidharan widow of Late Mr.K.Muralidharan, an employee of the Indian Bank who had passed away on 18.11.2003. The second petitioner is stated to have submitted an application dated 24.07.2004 for compassionate appointment as per the scheme in force at the relevant point of time, and awaited an order of appointment from the management of the Indian Bank, arrayed as Respondents 1 and 2/R1 and R2 (Bank).

2. The challenge in the writ petition is to scheme dated 30.08.2005 as per which the Board of the Indian Bank, at its meeting dated 10.08.2005 had approved a revised scheme based on the model scheme formulated as per Government guidelines providing for the payment of ex-gratia to the family of employees passing away in harness/or those employees who had prematurely retired on medical grounds in place of compassionate appointment.

3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would state that there were several applications that had been pending under the scheme that was earlier prevalent, and that provided for compassionate appointment, there had been no response from the Indian Bank in regard to any of the requests, including the request of the second petitioner.

4. The bank is seen to have responded to the application of the second petitioner on 08.09.2005, conveying to her that the scheme in force as on the date when her application had been taken up for consideration was the scheme dated 30.08.2005 and, in line with the same, she was required to submit a fresh application seeking ex-gratia with all required details within 15 days from the date of that communication i.e. on or before 23.09.2005. That the second petitioner has received this communication cannot be disputed since the same is placed as part of the compilation accompanying the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

5.The question that arises is as to whether an application filed seeking a benefit upon demise of an employee of the bank who was in harness at the time of demise/resignation on account of health reason would have to be considered in line with the scheme prevalent as on the date (i) of the triggering event, in this case, the demise of the bank employee, (ii) of submission of application by the legal heir, or (iii) when the application had been taken up for consideration by the bank.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that have considered this very issue. In the case of Canara Bank and another Vs. N.Mahesh Kumar ((2015 7 SCC 412) the very scheme under challenge before me now, came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which confirmed the order of the High Court directing the appellant bank to reconsider the claim of the respondents for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the 1993 Scheme which was then in existence.

7. Since the view taken in the case of Canara Bank was thought to be contrary to the views taken by two earlier Benches on this issue, MCB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014 13 SCC 583) and State Bank of India Vs. Rajkumar (2010 11 SCC 661), the issue to be referred to a larger Bench for resolution.

8. Accordingly, three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of N.C.Santhosh Vs. State Bank of Karnataka and others (AIR 2020 SC 1401), took note of the relevant case law in th