IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

209 CWP-13896-2021 (O&M).

Date of Decision: 01.03.2025.

SEEMA YADAV ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present: Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Challenging the order dated 03.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the General Manager, Canara Bank, Karnal, declining the benefit under the ex gratia claim filed by the petitioner as also on account of non-payment of the compensation on account of death during the Covid - 19 pandemic, the present writ petition has been filed.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the operative part of the impugned order which reads thus:-

“In this regard, we regret to inform you that on perusal and processing of your request /representation and the connected papers, the Competent Authority has not considered your request for Compassionate Appointment favourably as there were no indigent circumstances and the case does not fall within the parameters of the policy.”

3 It is evident from the above that the claim of the petitioner has been declined by the respondents on the ground that claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered since there were no indigent circumstances as the petitioner had been granted benefits to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore on account of various investments/Life Insurance Policies that had been obtained by her deceased husband. He further draws the attention of this Court to the Scheme for compassionate appointment or payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment issued by the respondent Bank vide HO CIR.296/2020 dated 18.04.2020 prescribing the General Rules for consideration of cases under the ex gratia account.

Clause 19 (7) thereof is extracted as under: -

“19. General Rules Procedure xxx xxx xxx

7. An application for compassionate appointment shall, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc.”

4 It is specifically provided that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. A balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family and responsibilities etc.

5 He contends that the respondents did not undertake the said exercise before declining the claim and that he would be satisfied at this stage in case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the said policy and thereafter to evaluate as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits or is disentitled on not meeting the bona fide requirements as prescribed by the respondent Bank.

6 He further refers to the circulars of the respondent Bank (Annexures P-11 and 12) regarding payment of compensation for bank employees in case of death during Covid – 19 pandemic. It is submitted that husband of the petitioner died on 23.12.2020 in the first wave of Covid -19, however, the claim for compensation has been declined solely on the ground that the post mortem report is not available to ascertain the cause of death. It is submitted that on account of va