Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents-Prathma Bank and perused the record.

2. Pleading between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent, the present petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

3. Present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 5.3.2013 passed by the Chairman, Prathma Bank, Moradabad filed as Annexures 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D and 8E. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus has been made to direct the respondents to forthwith sanction ex-gratia payment to each of the petitioners in terms of the scheme notified by circular letter dated 22.11.2006 so sanctioned forthwith with a period to be specified by this Hon’ble Court.

4. The petitioners, who are four in number, are widows of deceased employees of the respondent-Prathma Bank, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’). One member of the family of the deceased employee moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground in the Bank. Their applications were rejected on the ground that monthly income of the family was more than the ceiling of Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 3,500/- or Rs. 2,500/- per month as the case may be and therefore, their family condition was not penurious. The individual orders were challenged by the dependents of the deceased employee, who were seeking compassionate appointment questioning the rejection of their claim by filing seven writ petitions, which were disposed of collectively by a common judgement treating Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2005 (Pankaj Kumar v. Prathma Bank, Moradabad through its Chairman and another) alongwith six other connected writ petitions vide judgement and order dated 18.4.2016. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are quoted as under:

“In the present case, the scheme framed by the Bank contemplates taking into consideration the terminal benefits and, after calculating the net income of the family, an appointment on compassionate ground could be given, if the bank finds, that the family was living in a penurious condition. If the financial condition was sound and was not penurious, the Bank in its discretion, would not be obliged to grant an appointment on compassionate ground.

In Regional Manager, A.P. SRTC, Nellore and another v. C.M. Pavana Kumari, 2001 (10) SCC 585, the Supreme Court held that no direction can be issued to appoint a person on compassionate ground dehors the scheme framed by the employer, nor the Court had a power to modify the scheme or rules framed in this regard.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, as the same was passed in terms of the scheme framed by the Bank. The respondents found that the financial condition of the family was sound and was not in a penurious condition. The Bank rightly exercised its discretion in not giving an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. The writ petitions are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.” (Emphasis supplied)

5. The aforesaid judgement was passed by Hon’ble Single Judge after considering the entire law on the issue as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Against the aforesaid judgement, special appeals were filed. Treating Special Appeal No. 722 of 2006 (Ramesh Chandra v. Bank, Moradabad and others) as a leading appeal, the same were dismissed by a common judgement dated 3.9.2011. Taking into the provisions of the scheme 2003 that was prevailing at the time of consideration of claim of the dependents, the special appeals were dismissed. However, since new scheme for ex-gratia payment in 2006 has come into force, therefore, it was left open to the appellants to file representation claiming benefits under the new scheme 2006. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid