JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the speaking order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure P-9), whereby the respondent-Bank rejected the claim of the petitioner under the prevailing Compassionate Assistance Scheme, issued vide HRD Division Circular No.433 dated 03.11.2007, on account of death of his father, who was an employee of the bank

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Dhian Singh, deceased, father of the petitioner, was working as an Armed Guard at Branch Office, Putligarh of the respondent-Bank and was a regular employee since 16.04.1984. He died on 12.10.2003, during the course of his employment, after completing 19 years 5 months and 26 days of service and was survived by his widow, three daughters and two sons. The petitioner being his son applied for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance or appointment but neither the financial assistance was extended nor any compassionate appointment was offered to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.588 of 2017, wherein the entitlement of the petitioner for ex-gratia financial assistance was upheld but notwithstanding the same, adequate ex-gratia compensation was not granted under the scheme.

3. Counsel for the respondents-bank, on the other hand, contends that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment had been declined by the Bank and the said decision of the respondent-bank had been affirmed by this Court in its judgment dated 15.05.2017 passed in CWP No.588 of 2017 titled as 'Daljeet Singh Versus Punjab National Bank and Others'. The respondent-Bank was, however, directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance in terms of the policy framed by the bank. The operative part of the said order reads thus: -

'None of these elements is present in this case to consider in a request for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the bank to provide a job to the petitioner. Even to consider such request the petitioner is overage. No interference is warranted in this case.

Nevertheless, the ex gratia amount of financial assistance, if not paid, be considered for disbursement by the Bank by way of RTGS in the petitioner's mother account or by other means as instructed by the mother of the petitioner as the money would, when paid, in the first instance belong to her coming directly from her husband. The Bank would on a consideration of the matter transfer the fixed ex gratia amount with interest @ 10% per annum [the amount being a little over '30,000/-] from the date of death of the employee on 12.10.2003 till payment as policy makes it incumbent to deliver without procedural red tape as per HR Division Circular No.433 dated 03.11.2007, which Circular though not cited in the petition but is taken judicial notice of when brought to the notice of the Court saving all exceptions. The Bank would also consider its decision on ex gratia payment in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in M.G.B.Gramin Bank vs. Chakarvarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583. The Supreme Court in this case has held that it is a date of consideration which should be kept in mind to deal with compassionate appointment and ex gratia financial support as it would in the case of late Sh. Dhian Singh's wife -LRs.

The bank would pass a speaking order on the payment rights under the present or past policy, whichever is applicable, in accordance with law.

Let such a decision be taken within a period of three months. If hearing is asked for by the family of the late Dhian Singh, the same will be granted. If payment is found due it would be calculated and paid within the same time frame but not later than one month of the final decision. '

4. He submits that since the decision of the bank rejecting claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has already been upheld by this Court, hence, the same cannot be re-agitated he