JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing of the action of the respondents in not releasing her the financial aid (ex- gratia) in terms of the scheme of the bank and further quashing of the order dated 28.01.2006 (Annexure P-7) whereby her prayer for grant of financial relief for ex-gratia has been declined arbitrarily.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is a widow of late Shri Jagdish Parshad who was working in the respondent-Bank and unfortunately died on 20.08.2003 while on duty. The petitioner had prayed for grant of compassionate appointment to her son and also for ex-gratia payment and the same relief has also been claimed in the present petition but the petitioner confines the scope of the present petition only to the extent of grant of ex-gratia relief and not for the grant of compassionate appointment and has submitted that the respondent-bank has unlawfully declined to grant the ex-gratia relief to the petitioner. She submitted that earier there was a scheme pertaining to grant of compassionate appointment in case of death of the employees of the respondent- Bank which is Oriental Bank of Commerce but thereafter the scheme of compassionate appointment was discontinued by the bank itself and in lieu of the same, the scheme for payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of the appointment on compassionate ground was framed by the respondent-Bank. The aforesaid scheme dated 05.05.2005 has been attached alongwith the present petition as Annexure P-4 which provided for the grant of ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate basis and this scheme came into force from 04.06.2005. So far as the husband of petitioner No.1 is concerned, he died on 20.08.2003 and vide letter dated 01.09.2005 (Annexure P-3), it was verified that the request for payment of ex-gratia amount shall be considered only if the request of the same is received within six months from the date of the circulation of the scheme i.e. upto 04.11.2005. In this way, the petitioner applied for the ex-gratia within the aforesaid period of six months and rather the application of the petitioner was referred to the head office by the bank itself vide Annexure P-5 on 29.09.2005 which is a concrete proposal for sanction of the ex-gratia amount and therefore the petitioner well within time made an application for the grant of ex-gratia amount and the proposal was sent to the head office. However, the head office vide impugned order Annexure P-7 dated 28.01.2006 declined to grant ex-gratia on the ground that she does not fulfill the provisions of the scheme.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the Annexure P-7 would show that on the face of it, it was a cryptic and arbitrary order. The only reason which has been so stated in the impugned order was that the petitioner does not fulfill the provisions of the scheme and is not based upon any material or any reasoning and therefore the order was totally cryptic and non-speaking order. She submitted that from a query being raised by her from the bank as to what was the reason, to which, it was so stated by the bank at that point of time that the scheme of ex-gratia grant as per Annexure P-4 would be applicable in case the family income of the person seeking ex-gratia amount is less than 60% of the salary of the deceased. The aforesaid provision is so referred in Column No.8 of Annexure P-4, which is reproduced as under:-