JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner's husband, the late Indra Mani Yadav was a Class-III employee in the service of the State Bank of India. He was posted at the State Bank of India, Branch Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar in the year 2007. He met with an accident and died in harness on 31.12.2007. The petitioner, the deceased employee's widow, moved the respondent Bank, seeking payment of death-retirement benefits on account of her husband's services. These benefits were paid to the petitioner by the Bank.

2. The petitioner next moved an application seeking compassionate appointment for her son. The Bank responded to the petitioner's application by their memo dated 01.12.2011 saying that w.e.f. 04.08.2005, the Establishment had discontinued granting compassionate appointment, but in its stead, pay a lump sum money, styled as ex gratia. It was said in the memo dated 01.12.2011 that the Bank were forwarding to the petitioner an application form for the payment of ex gratia, which the petitioner may, within a week of receipt thereof, submit to the Bank, completing all other formalities required.

3. The petitioner says that she submitted the application form to the Khalilabad Branch of the Bank on 13.12.2011, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. This application is in a printed proforma, filled up with grueling details and information.

4. It is the petitioner's case that after submitting her application form for payment of the ex gratia, she submitted several representations to expedite it, but all that she received was assurance extended by different officials of the Bank. The petitioner, being the widow of a deceased Bank employee, had faith in the higher officials of that organization and trusted them for their word. She moved a representation dated 22.09.2012, followed by another dated 23.11.2012, requesting payment of the ex gratia, to which she was entitled. These applications were duly received by the respondent Bank. After a substantial period of this chase and false assurances extended, the petitioner was compelled to institute Writ-A No.12428 of 2022 before this Court, seeking a direction to the Bank to release the ex gratia payable to her and further to consider her representation dated 27.12.2021. This petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 01.09.2022, directing the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Gorakhpur to decide the petitioner's representation and also look into her grievance about the non-payment of ex gratia in terms of the claim. It was also ordered that the ex gratia, found due to the petitioner, be paid to her within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order was produced before the Bank. In compliance with the orders passed by this Court, the respondent Bank paid the petitioner's ex gratia on 01.09.2022, the sum of money paid being Rs.7 lacs. The petitioner expected that the payment made, being one after a long lapse of time, would carry interest, but that was not paid.

5. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent Bank officials, despite knowledge of the fact that her husband had died in harness in the year 2007, did not choose to pay her the ex gratia, to which she was then entitled under the relevant scheme. It is also asserted on behalf of the petitioner that after moving an application for the payment of ex gratia on 19.12.2011, the said sum of money was paid by the Bank on 19.11.2022, to wit, after a lapse of 11 years. It is the petitioner's case that though she is entitled to the payment of ex gratia on account of her husband's demise in harness that payment was withheld for more than a decade, due to lethargy and inaction of the respondents in breach of their duty.

6. The petitioner, after receipt of the ex gratia, moved an application on 06.12.2022, followed by another dated 17,12,2022, requesting payme