JUDGMENT

Vivek Chaudhary, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the respondent-Bank whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is rejected on the ground that since the circular is effective from 01.03.2019 and the husband of the petitioner has died on 19.01.2018, hence the same is not applicable in the case of petitioner.

3. Facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner late Balveer Singh has expired on 19.01.2018 while serving in respondent-Bank. At the relevant time there was no scheme for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness. However, the scheme for the said purposes came into force w.e.f. 01.03.2019. The petitioner moved an application under the said scheme for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness which is rejected by order dated 07.12.2021 by the Chief Manager, Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank on the ground that the death of petitioner's husband took place on 19.01.2018 and at that time no scheme was in force and the scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.03.2019, hence the petitioner is not entitled for the appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the scheme dated 10.05.2019, which is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The relevant portion of the scheme dated 10.05.2019, reads as follows:-

"8. Time Limit for Considering Applications.

8.1 Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case.

8.2 However, Bank can consider request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. While considering such belated request, it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the employee in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such case would call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to take appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases may, therefore, be taken only at the Board level."

6. A bare perusal of the said clause shows that application can be moved within a period of five years from the date of death. There is no dispute that the death has taken place before coming into force the said scheme. Clause 8.2 specifically says that application can be filed within five years of death. Thus even when the death has taken place earlier such cases shall also be considered. There is no bar in this regard in the scheme.

7. In the present case, the death has taken place hardly a year before the scheme came into force, hence there is no dispute that the application is made within a period of five years.

8. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 07.12.2021, cannot stand and is set aside.

9. The competent authority/respondent Bank is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in Harness as per the scheme dated 10.05.2019 and a decision shall be taken by the competent authority/respondent/Bank, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

10. The writ petition is allowed.