IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23875-2015(O&M)

Reserved on: 11.02.2025 Pronounced on: 21.02.2025 SMT. SUDESH KUMARI . . . .PETITIONER Vs.

PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the reply dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P8) of the respondents, vide which claim of the petitioner for grant of ex gratia amount of ₹6 lakh on account of death of her husband has been declined. Petitioner further prays for issuance of the writ of mandamus by directing the respondents to grant ex gratia amount to the petitioner on account to the death of her husband on duty as per the Scheme dated 26.08.2006, which was issued vide circular No.3/2007 dated 10.01.2007 (Annexure P9), along with interest.

2.1 Sh. Nasib Singh, husband of the petitioner, had initially joined the Indian Army as Sepoy on 20.11.1973 and was discharged from there on 16.11.1979. He was then appointed as Peon-cum-Messenger in the year 1990 by the respondent-Bank. Unfortunately, he expired on 09.11.2011, leaving behind six dependents - wife (petitioner), three married daughters and two unmarried sons. Petitioner approached the respondents for grant of family pension to her and also for compassionate appointment to either of her sons. However, she was informed vide letter dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P2) by respondent No.4 that there was no provision for family pension. However, petitioner was informed by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 09.03.2012 (Annexure P3) that Board of Directors had adopted a scheme for payment of ex gratia (lumpsum amount) in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground, regarding which a circular dated 10.01.2007 had been issued and that she could apply for ex gratia amount under the said scheme.

2.2 Petitioner accordingly applied for ex gratia amount vide letter dated 16.03.2012, but with no fruitful result. Despite repeated representations, no action was taken, compelling the petitioner to serve a legal notice dated 16.03.2015 (Annexure P7), which was responded by the respondents vide impugned reply dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P8) stating therein that monthly family income of the petitioner was more than 60% of the last monthly salary drawn by her deceased-husband and so, she was not entitled for the ex gratia amount in view of Clause 8 of the Scheme and the circular dated 10.01.2007. As such, claim of the petitioner for ex gratia was rejected.

2.3 The aforesaid action of the respondents has been assailed by the petitioner by way of this petition by submitting that respondents have wrongly included monthly Defence Pension of ₹5530/- in the monthly family income of the petitioner and that it should have been excluded. Petitioner has relied upon decision of this Court rendered in Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and another, 2009 (7) SLR 403

3. As per the stand taken by the respondents, petitioner was getting family pension from Army i.e. the previous employer of her husband and as such, that amount was liable to be included in the family income. It is stated that after including the said income, total monthly income of the family is calculated to be more than 60% and therefore, petitioner was not entitled for grant of ex gratia under the Scheme. Prayer is accordingly made for dismissal of the petition.

4. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the paper-book.

5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778, Hon’ble Supreme Court while commenting on employment to any office under the state and the appointment on compassionate grounds, observed as under: -

“6. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival submission made during the