209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 15.09.2025 SHARDA YADAV AND ANR.

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Anil K. Ahuja, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned action of the respondents vide, which the respondents have denied the claim for ex-gratia appointment vide letter dated 24.05.2012 (Annexure P-5) to the petitioner no.2 as well as financial assistance to the petitioner no.1 vide letter dated 13.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondents, which is against the policy as well as settled preposition of the law.

2. Brief Facts:-

The petitioner No.1, is the widow of a deceased employee (her husband), who was serving as a clerk at Vijaya Bank, Bhiwadi Branch in Rajasthan, met with a fatal accident on 28.02.2012 while traveling to work. He passed away on 03.03.2012 during the course of employment. The respondent bank has a policy in place regarding compassionate appointments and financial assistance under the Ex-Gratia scheme. According to this policy, the dependent(s) of a deceased employee are entitled to compassionate employment or, if ineligible, to financial assistance. On 23.04.2012 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner (no. 1) applied for compassionate employment for her son (petitioner no. 2) as well as for financial assistance under the Ex-Gratia Scheme, providing all the necessary documents in accordance with the bank’s policy. On 24.12.2012 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner received a letter from the bank rejecting the request for compassionate employment, stating that the bank was not considering such appointments and was only providing Ex-Gratia in lieu of compassionate appointments. On 13.11.2012 (Annexure P-6), the bank rejected the financial assistance claim by falsely stating that the petitioner's family income exceeded 60% of the deceased’s last drawn salary, which the petitioner claims is inaccurate, as they own only one kanal of land and no other significant source of income. Despite repeated communications from petitioner no. 2 (including letters sent between 2013 and 2015), no action was taken by the respondent bank. The petitioners have not received any further response from the bank regarding either the compassionate appointment or the financial assistance.

3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent bank has violated its own policies regarding compassionate appointments and financial assistance under the Ex-Gratia scheme, both in letter and spirit. Despite the petitioners meeting all the necessary criteria, their claims have been arbitrarily rejected without due consideration of the applicable rules. The refusal to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner no. 2, who is entitled under the bank’s policy, amounts to a violation of the petitioner’s legal right to receive support from the employer following the untimely death of the sole breadwinner.

It is further submitted that the rejection of financial assistance under the Ex-Gratia scheme is based on incorrect and misleading claims regarding the family’s income. The respondent bank falsely stated that the petitioner’s family income exceeded 60% of the deceased's last drawn salary, when in reality, the petitioners have limited assets, including only one kanal of land, and no other significant sources of income. This wrongful rejection of financial assistance is a grave injustice and a failure to provide the necessary relief to the distressed family.

On behalf of respondents/Union of India Learned counsel for respondent vehemently contends that as per the said applicable circular, the scheme for com