JUDGMENT

Heard Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel representing the appellants/Bank, Shri Om Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent no.1/writ petitioner and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.3-NABARD.

2. The present intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 1952, has been filed by the appellants/Bank, wherein they have questioned the judgment and order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 20885 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. It is the contention of the appellants/bank that the aforesaid writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order dated 08.04.2019, by which application of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 for compassionate appointment was rejected, has been set-aside by the learned Single Judge and appellants herein have been directed to decide the claim of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in the light of the directions given in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2023 : Smt. Manjeet Kaur v. State of U.P. and another vide order dated 05.04.2023.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of respondent no.1/writ petitioner, who was working in the appellants-Bank on the post of Messenger [Office Attendant (Multipurpose)], died in harness on 12.08.2014. As on that date, the scheme, namely, 'Scheme for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds or appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases' was existant in the appellants/Bank.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein that on the death of his father in harness, his mother had not received any aid under the ex gratia scheme and has made application on 02.02.2015, followed by reminders on 28.05.2015 and 06.05.2016, for appointment of one of the family members on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had also submitted an application before the appellants/Bank for appointment under the aforesaid scheme. However, subsequently, vide letters dated 03.07.2017 and 18.12.2017, the appellants/Bank informed the respondent no.1 that his candidature is not covered under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme and hence he is not eligible for appointment under the said scheme. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 16890 (S/S) of 2018 before this Court. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2018, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following directions :-

"In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of finally directing the competent authority of the Government of India to implement the scheme of compassionate appointment in the Regional Rural Banks in a same manner, which has been implemented in the Public Sector Banks at the earliest, so that the real needy persons could get an appropriate appointment as per scheme.

If the scheme is implemented in the respondent bank, petitioner would be at liberty to apply for any suitable appointment under compassionate appointment. But at this stage, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted."

5. According to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, in pursuance of the letter of National Bank for Agricultural and Development (NABARD) dated 09.01.2019, the Board of Directors of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (appellants herein) adopted the Scheme for Compassionate appointment w.e.f. the date of its adoption in Bank i.e. from 15.03.2019. According to him, Clause 8 (2) of the aforesaid Sch