JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

CM-20062-CWP-2023

The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for permission to place on the record the replication to written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Replication is ordered to be taken on record.

Registry is directed to place the same at the appropriate place.

Main

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned rejection letters dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure P-8) and 18.07.2020 (Annexure P-25), whereby the claim of petitioner No.2, for appointment on compassionate grounds under the ex- gratia scheme was rejected by the respondent-Bank. A writ of mandamus is also sought, directing the respondents to appoint petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds in terms of the policy applicable at the time of his father's demise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the father of petitioner No.2, died in harness on 08.08.2016 while serving as a Branch Manager with respondent Bank. At the time of his death, the policy governing compassionate appointment was the one circulated vide circular dated 27.03.2009 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners applied for compassionate appointment for Petitioner No.2 promptly in September 2016. The respondent-Bank kept the application pending under the guise of seeking clarifications and additional documents. Meanwhile, the Bank, citing instructions from NABARD, following which they withdrew the compassionate appointment scheme in November 2018 and subsequently revived a modified policy vide circular dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure R-2/1), which offered only an ex-gratia lump sum payment in lieu of appointment. The respondents rejected the petitioner's claim, stating they were governed by the 2019 policy and that the petitioner had not applied for the ex-gratia payment within the stipulated six-month period. Learned counsel further contended that applying a subsequent policy to a death that occurred in 2016 is patently illegal and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further points out that the respondent-Bank appointed 8 individuals on compassionate grounds on 11.06.2018, i.e., after the petitioner's application was submitted but before the scheme's purported withdrawal, demonstrating arbitrariness and discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the Bank) submits that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession governed by the policy in force at the time of consideration. He relies on the Bank's circular dated 21.01.2019, which restored the 2009 scheme but only for the payment of an ex-gratia amount, not for direct appointment. He further submits that as the petitioner did not apply for this ex-gratia amount within six months of the scheme's restoration, he is not entitled to any relief. He further contends that the deceased employee did not meet the "exceptional circumstances" criteria (death due to violence or death within five years of service/before 30 years of age) outlined in the 2009 policy for a direct appointment. Thus, the rejection is justified.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed a short reply, stating that the dispute is essentially between the petitioners and the Bank and that the State is only a proforma party.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The core issue in the present case is that, which policy governs a claim for compassionate appointment – the one prevalent on the date of the employee's death or a subsequent policy that comes into force during the pendency of the application?

7. This issue is