ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in PAD/178/CL/491/2015-2016 and quash the impugned letter dated 10.02.2016 as highly illegal and further direct the 1st respondent to pay the interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of Limitation.

The petitioner's husband, while serving as a Messenger in the respondent bank for more than 20 years, died on 07.12.2007. To the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the first respondent herein had rejected on 10.09.2008 on the ground that there is no scheme for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application dated 18.07.2010 for Ex-gratia since compassionate appointment was declined. When this request for Ex-gratia was rejected by the respondent on 20.06.2011 the same was challenged before this Court together with the rejection order dated 10.09.2008, rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. This Court, by order dated 10.09.2014 had held that when the bank knew that there was no scheme for compassionate appointment when the petitioner made an application on 12.02.2008, the application itself ought to have been treated as an application for claiming Ex-gratia and proceeded further.

2. In this background, the order rejecting the claim for Ex-gratia was set aside and the petitioner was directed to provide necessary particulars for processing the Ex-gratia payment. In this background, Ex-gratia payment came to be sanctioned on 31.07.2015. The petitioner now seeks for interest on the belated payment of Ex-gratia.

3. The earlier order of this Court in WP No.21584 of 2012 dated 10.09.2008 has not been challenged and the same has become final. The effect of the order passed by this Court on 10.09.2014 was that the application made by the petitioner on 12.02.2008 was directed to treated as an application for Ex-gratia. The relevant portion of the orders read as follows:-

“11. As stated above, the averments made by the petitioner that the application for compassionate appointment was made on 12.02.2008 was not disputed in the counter affidavit. The bank was providing compassionate appointment for a very long time to one of the members of the deceased family, if the workman dies during service. But the said Scheme was discontinued in 2004 and in its place, the Scheme providing Ex-gratia was introduced. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the application for compassionate appointment shall be treated as application for claiming Ex-gratia. The Bank is perfectly correct in refusing to provide compassionate appointment since there is no Scheme when the application is made for compassionate appointment. When the application is made for compassionate appointment, the Bank shall not proceed technically that the application for compassionate appointment was not made in time though the application for compassionate appointment was made within six months. Therefore, the six months' time that is prescribed in Paragraph 5 of the Scheme providing Ex-gratia payment is said to have been complied with in view of the application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Furthermore, it is relevant to take note of the letter dated 08.11.2011 sent by the first respondent, who is the higher authority to the second respondent calling for details to consider the payment of Ex-gratia to the petitioner. The copy of the said letter was also marked to the petitioner.

12. In view of the fact that application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within six months from the date of the death of the employee and in view of the letter dated 08.11.2011 of the first respondent to the second respondent seeking details to consider payment of ex-gratia and the said letter also being marked to the petitioner, I am of the view that the order of the second respondent refusing t