The limitation period prescribed for filing an ex-gratia application under a welfare scheme for deceased employees cannot be applied strictly to deny relief when the delay is procedural or due to the pendency of other terminal benefit settlements, as such schemes require liberal and humane interpretation.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief(s):

“(a) That, the impugned orders of respondent no.1&2 no. R.O./02HRD/2013-14/228 dated 27/29-05.13 contained in Annexure P/7 & order dated 20.10.2012 of respondent no.3 based on order of respondent no.2 contained in Annexure P/4 may kindly be quashed.

(b) That, the respondents may kindly be ordered or directed to make payment of Ex-gratia and outstanding medicals claims to the petitioner along with interest.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble court dreams fit under the facts and circumstances of the case be also award along with cost.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of deceased Mahesh Kumar Jain. The husband of petitioner No.1 was serving on the post of Cashier in the office of respondent No.3 at Dabra. He developed a cancerous disease and during the course of treatment, he died on 30.09.2009 in Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioners intimated the respondents about the death of deceased and petitioner No.1 submitted an application to respondent No.1 on 22.10.2009 requesting payment of gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment, and medical claims of her husband. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 also submitted another application dated 23.10.2009 seeking compassionate appointment and further requested grant of all benefits, including leave encashment, fund amount, insurance amount, financial benefits, arrears of salary, and other admissible dues arising after the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the respondents did not take any action on the aforesaid applications. However, vide order dated 23.01.2012, respondent No.2 called for documents pertaining to the treatment of the deceased. Thereafter, vide communication dated 20.10.2012, the petitioner was informed that respondent No.2 had rejected her claim for ex-gratia payment vide letter dated 31.08.2012 on the ground that the application was not submitted within the prescribed time and, therefore, was not liable to be considered. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.12.2012 and a reminder dated 13.05.2013. Subsequently, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 27.05.2013 stating that the application of petitioner for ex-gratia payment had been closed on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice through her advocate. It is further submitted that the respondent Bank has paid all other amounts except the ex-gratia amount. It is submitted that gratuity was paid to petitioner on 31.12.2009 and thereafter, a differential amount was paid on 23.06.2011 as per the 9th Pay Scale. Further, leave encashment was granted on 18.12.2009, and the difference amount, as per the 9th Pay revision, was paid on 08.11.2010. The amount under GSLIC was granted vide order dated 27.03.2010. It is further submitted that although the respondents have paid the aforesaid amounts on the respective dates but they rejected the claim of petitioner for ex-gratia payment vide order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P/7) on the basis of order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure R/8).

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the concept of ex gratia payment has been introduced in the service jurisprudence because of granting help to the dependents of deceased employee who devoted his/her precious time with employer and in such circumstances in absence of the deceased employee, employer is duty bound to maintain the dependents of deceased. In such circumstances, while deciding