Internal circulars imposing limitations must be communicated to legal heirs to be enforceable; lack of knowledge invalidates such limitations.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent- Bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter\orders dated 19.9.2013 and 8.11.2013 passed by respondent no.2 contained in Annexure no 8 and 12 respectively to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment under dying in harness rules.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Bank to provide Ex-gratia payment to the petitioner in lieu of the appointment."

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that mother of petitioner was employee of the respondent-Bank, who died on 7.10.2011. Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 8.2.2013. In response thereof, respondent-Bank has issued a letter dated 23.2.2013 that compassionate appointment cannot be awarded, however, Ex-gratia payment can be made, if the papers are submitted as required by the Bank. In pursuance thereof, brother of petitioner Sanjeev Mishra have applied on 7.7.2013. The aforesaid application for Ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment was rejected by Bank on 8.11.2014 on the ground that application for Ex-gratia lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment has to be submitted within six month from the date of death of employee. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is only when the Bank has invited the aforesaid application from the petitioner by letter dated 23.2.2013 for Ex-gratia payment, the brother of petitioner had applied, who in the year 2017 has died. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed by petitioner as Ex-gratia payment is for the benefit of whole family and as such, petitioner is also entitled to claim Ex-gratia payment. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that limitation as has been stated of six month has arisen out of circular of the respondent- Bank, which is filed at page 12 of the counter affidavit. The circular is of 9.4.2008. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that circular is internal document of respondent-Bank and it was not within the knowledge of legal heirs of deceased employee and as such, application for Ex-gratia payment could not be made. Even otherwise, it is the Bank, who has communicated by letter dated 23.2.2013 to apply for Ex-gratia payment, then the application has been filed within six months.

4. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that as per circular of the Bank Ex-gratia payment is required to be applied within six month from the date of death of employee. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has relied upon circular dated 9.4.2008 of the Bank, which is filed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that in view of the fact that application was filed beyond limitation prescribed in the aforesaid circular, the claim for Ex-gratia payment has been rejected.

5. On a query being made to learned counsel for respondent-Bank as to why Bank has issued a letter dated 23.2.2013 filed along with writ petition as Annexure No.3 for inviting application for Ex-gratia payment when the Bank was very well aware that the application is required to be filed as per circular within six months from the date of death of employee, learned counsel for respondent-Bank could not give any satisfactory reply in this respect.

6. It is to be seen that Ex-gratia payment is in lieu of compassion