Smt. Rekha Jain & Ors. vs Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank & Ors.

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

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).

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 the case of the petitioner for ex gratia payment, lenient view is required to be taken by the Authority but here in the present case by acting in a mechanical manner claim of the petitioner has been rejected technically. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that ex gratia payment is a last hope of the dependents of the deceased employee who is no more and question of last hope cannot be considered by applying the strict interpretation and same should be considered by applying the rule of liberal interpretation because cases of ex gratia payment remain always on the mercy of employer and prayer of mercy cannot be refused in such a mechanical manner.

Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner duly explained, in the notice which was sent on her behalf by the advocate, the delay occurred in applying ex gratia because the question of livelihood was there before her so she was indulged in settling the family pension claim and when the family pension claim was settled by the respondent Bank, without wasting time she immediately applied for ex gratia but such claim of ex gratia has been turned down by the respondent-Bank by applying the concept of technicalities and mathematics stating that same must be filed within six months as provided in the policy but while rejecting the said claim the respondent Bank did not consider the fact that petitioner is a widow having kid with her and having more burden on her shoulders. So, the delay in applying claim of ex gratia ought to have been condoned by the respondent-Bank but by applying the strict principles claim of petitioner for grant of ex gratia payment has been denied in a mechanical manner.

Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents/Bank that as per the Policy dated 21.8.2008 ex gratia amount will be paid to the family of the deceased employee if eligible and if requested for within six months from the date of the death of the employee. Learned counsel for respondents/Bank further submitted that husband of petitioner late Mahesh Kumar Jain expired on 30.9.2009 and petitioner submitted her application for ex gratia payment before the respondent bank on dated 09.07.2012 i.e. after lapse of more than two years from the death of her husband. Therefore, due to late submission of application for payment of ex gratia, the competent authority rejected the application of petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents-Bank further submitted that respondent-bank has already paid all of the terminal dues of deceased employee to the petitioner in her saving account. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submitted that each and every action of the respondent-Bank is based on the Scheme/Circular issued by respondent- Bank and therefore the impugned orders are just and proper. Learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on 12 of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v .C. Krishan Reddy [Civil Appeal No.7127 of 1999 order dated 18.12.2003]. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank placed reliance on para 6 of order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Sharma Vs. Union Bank of India reported in 2019 (II) MPWN 5, which for ready reference and convenience is quoted below as under:

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Perusal of record reveals that petitioner No.1, the widow of late Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, along with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (sons of the deceased), claimed that the deceased was working on the post of Cashier in the office of respondent No.3 at Dabra and he died on 30.09.2009 in Delhi during treatment of a cancerous disease. After his death, the petitioners informed the respondents and sought payment of all retiral and other admissible dues including gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment, medical claims and compassionate appointment. The record reflects that though the respondents released other dues such as gratuity, leave encashment, and GSLIC amounts from time to time the claim for ex-gratia payment was rejected on the ground that the application was not submitted within the prescribed period. The rejection was communicated vide order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P/7), based on the policy dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure R/8). The petitioners contend that ex-gratia payment is intended to provide financial assistance to the dependents of a deceased employee and therefore, requires a liberal and compassionate approach. The delay in submitting the application was attributed to the petitioner’s circumstances, particularly the need to secure family pension and manage livelihood after the death of her husband. However, the respondents rejected the claim on technical grounds of limitation without considering these circumstances. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that the rejection of the ex-gratia claim was made in a mechanical manner by applying strict technical rules without adopting a humane and liberal approach warranted in such cases. The judgment cited by respondent dated 18.12.2003 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7127/1999 [Union of India v .C. Krishan Reddy] is not applicable in the present case as the facts and grounds mentioned in the said order are different from the present case.

Clause 5 of the Revised Model Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Amount in Lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds and Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Grounds, relating to ex-gratia payment, is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:

The amount is payable to the family of deceased employee who is in indigent or penurious circumstances, provided the request is made within six months from the date of the employee's demise. The ex gratia amount varies based on deceased employee's last drawn gross salary & the family's total income. There was a delay of approximately two years in the submission of the ex gratia application. It was not intentional and should be condoned, especially considering her pursuit of compassionate appointment.

The delay of approximately two years in filing application for ex gratia compensation shall be condoned and the petitioner is entitled to be paid ex gratia compensation. Denial of ex gratia compensation to the petitioner is in violation of her legal right. Being a legal heir & dependent of her husband, she is entitled to be granted ex gratia compensation. The application of petitioner is not denied on the ground that the petitioner does not deserve or she is not eligible for ex gratia compensation which is apparent from the order impugned Annexure P-7, relevant of which reads as under:

The respondents had not communicated her that she could avail the remedy available under the Scheme i.e. Scheme for payment of Ex-gratia (lump sum amount) in lieu of Appointment on compassionate grounds in RRBs.” dated 21.8.2008 for grant of ex gratia payment in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground within six months from the date of death of her husband. Petitioner was also given family pension. In the circumstances, the respondent ought to have either rejected the application on the ground that petitioner is not eligible for ex gratia payment which has not been done by the respondent/Bank, rather the plea taken is that the application was not filed within six months in terms of Clause 4 of the Scheme. The respondents have not intimated to petitioner that there is a limitation period of six months for applying for the ex gratia amount.

Respondent-Bank issued Family Pension Disbursement order only and paid other benefits on 18.11.2010 and 23.6.2011 and due to which the application for grant of ex gratia could not be moved within six months. In application form of ex gratia (J/V), there is a Clause/Para pertaining to monthly family pension. Petitioner submitted application for ex gratia on 09.07.2012. Learned counsel for respondent/Bank is unable to give any plausible reason for fixing the time for filing an application within six months only. If the steps have not been taken by the widow of a deceased employee within six months, that may not be strictly taken into consideration in accordance with Scheme. The relief of grant of ex gratia payment should not have been disallowed merely on this technicality that the application requesting grant of ex gratia payment was not filed within six months under the scheme of ex gratia. The limitation of six months is also not a statutory limitation to be construed so strictly that after the expiry of that period the relief cannot be granted on any ground. Respondent/Bank ought to have communicated the petitioner that she should collect information and do the needful before the expiry of six months after the demise of her husband. The respondent/Bank has not disclosed as to when such communication had been made to her. Ex gratia payment is a last hope of the dependents of the deceased employee who is no more and question of last hope cannot be considered by applying the strict interpretation and same should be considered by applying the rule of liberal interpretation because cases of ex gratia payment remains always on the mercy of employer and prayer of mercy cannot be refused in such a mechanical manner. The format of the application which had been filed by petitioner has columns regarding amounts received by petitioner as Pension, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment amount etc. It is not disputed that these amounts were given by respondent/Bank. The respondent/Bank has given the dates when these amounts were given to petitioner i.e on 18.11.2010 and 23.6.2011. Without receiving the amount of Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity etc, the petitioner could not claim the ex gratia amount under the scheme and could not fill the the form completely. Therefore, even if there was some delay in filing proper application on the format prescribed under the Scheme, it should have been condoned by respondent/Bank.

As per application for compassionate appointment, educational qualification of petitioner is Class -XII and her husband was Cashier, therefore, it is not expected from the petitioner that she had understood the policy/scheme/format of application (in English) for ex gratia payment. Petitioner is having mother and two son- in-law as per Annexure P/2.

So far as the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Sharma (supra) is concerned, the facts of the present case and of that case are different. Even otherwise, by order dated 03-12-2021 passed in WA.No.905/2019 [preferred against the order dated 04.04.2019 passed in WP.No.3916/2011 (Deepak Sharma Vs. Union Bank of India & Another)], the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that action of the Bank in not granting ex gratia to the petitioner after death of her husband late Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain is unwarranted and in the circumstances, inevitable inference considering the entirety of facts is that petitioner cannot be denied grant of ex gratia payment in accordance with Scheme of 21.8.2008 merely on the ground that the application in the prescribed format was not filed by petitioner within six months from the date of death of her husband. In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate to deny the petitioner the grant of ex gratia payment on demise of her husband who worked with the respondent/Bank and the ends of justice would meet only if the petitioner is granted ex gratia amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Only).

In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Bank to pay Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Only) to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of order, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to the interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount additionally from the date of filing of petition i.e. 15.05.2014 till realization of the amount.