AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for me respondents.
The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner is the widow of an employee of Bank of Baroda, represented by-respondent no.2. He died while he was in service on 28.6.2007 and he was working as a Security Guard in the K.G.Road Branch of the Bank at Bangalore. He had entered the service of the Bank in the year 1990 on retiring from the Indian Army on 30.6.1988, where he was working as a Naik in the Madras Engineering Group. He had put in 15 years of service in the Indian Army. After his death, his wife was receiving family pension of Rs.2642/- by virtue of her husband''s service in the Army.
The petitioner, on the death of her husband, had submitted an application seeking extension of the benefit of the Scheme for Payment Ex-gratia Financial Relief to the dependants of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds, which was introduced by the respondent - Bank as per Circular dated 14.10.2005. It is stated that the Bank did not extend the benefit to the petitioner, on the footing that the income that the petitioner and her family were receiving exceeded 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee, as per Annexure-C. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this court.
It is stated that the last drawn gross salary of the deceased was about Rs.8859/- for the month of January which is incorrectly shown as Rs.8705/- in the writ petition and the pension drawn by the petitioner was only Rs.2642/-. It is also stated that the Bank ought not to have taken into account the family pension which was being paid by the Indian Army for the services rendered by the petitioner''s husband as it was not for the services rendered to the Bank and therefore, the Bank was not in a position to take that into account.. However, the same is one of the heads included in the income which was available to the family of the petitioner. It is stated that in the usual course, the petitioner''s husband would have continued in service for atleast seven years if he had continued to live and the denial of a nominal benefit, which she was claiming therefore, results in miscarriage of justice and seeks the intervention of this court.
The Bank has entered appearance through counsel and has vehemently denied the claim of the petitioner. The Bank reiterates that it is the income of the family front all sources which would be relevant to consider, whether the petitioner and her family would be entitled to the relief that is to be provided under the scheme. Hence, an amount of Rs.2,642/-, which is certainly available to the petitioner, is taken into account and the Bank has considered her application in accordance with the guidelines prescribed and has accordingly denied the same. According to the respondent-Bank, the petitioner did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The deceased was facing a departmental inquiry for unauthorised absence at the time of his death. His hospitalisation claim till his death has been reimbursed by the bank. The ex-gratia relief under the above Scheme is not an entitlement, but may be granted at the sole discretion of the Bank, after taking into consideration the financial condition of the family. The computation of the family income is indicated in the Statement of Objections as hereunder:-
COMPUTATION OF MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME:
Family income shall be computed as per the following formula:-
A. Terminal Benefits:-
The sum total of the following amounts received as terminal benefits:
i.
Provident Fund
Rs. 1,96,118.00
ii.
Gratuity
Rs. 1,10,026.00
iii.
Additional Retirement Benefit
NIL
iv.
Leave Encashment
NIL
v.
Other terminal benefits paid
Rs. 50,000.00
Subtotal (A) i.e., (i) to (v)
Rs.3,56,144.00
B.
Financial Liabilities:
i.
Housing Loan availed from the Bank
NIL
ii.
Vehicle Loan availed from the Bank
NIL
iii.
Other loans from Bank
Rs. 35,331.00
iv. Loans from other Financial Institutions/Co-op. Societies With the prior approval of the Bank
Rs.50,809.00
Subtotal (B) i.e.,(i) to (iv)
Rs.86,140.00
C. Net corpus of Terminal Benefits (C)=(A)-(B)
Rs.2,70,004.00
D. Investments:
i. Deposits
---
ii NSCs
---
iii. PPF
---
iv. LIC policies
---
v. Others Subtotal (D) i.e.,(i) to (v)
---
E. Details of movable properly, if any, held and monthly income derived therefrom --NIL---
F. Details of Immovable property, if any, held and monthly income derived therefrom -- NIL--
G. Thus monthly income of the family from all sources shall be arrived at as the sum of the following as under:
i)
Monthly interest at the Bank''s maximum term deposits rate (as applicable for staff on the last date of payment of terminal benefits) on the net corpus of terminal benefits (C)
Rs.2,70,004.00
ii)
Monthly income from investments (D)
Rs.2,025.00 (2,70.004.00X9% approx./12)
iii)
Monthly income from Movable and Immovable property (E+F)
---
iv
Monthly income of dependent family members Mr.Shivaram Rs.800/- + Mr.Raghuvendra 700/-)
Rs. 1,500.00
v
Pension (Military)
Rs.2,642.00
TOTAL
Rs.6,167.00 p.m
It is sought to be concluded that since the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee was Rs.8859/- per month and since 60% of the said amount would be about Rs.5315/-, the income available to the family being in excess of Rs.6,000/-, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits under the Scheme.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of rejoinder, has sought to contend that the Bank has proceeded to compute the income available to the family of the petitioner in an unfair and unjust manner. It is contended that the gross salary will be after deduction of taxes and hence, the Bank adopting Rs.7,973/- as the monthly gross salary is incorrect. The bank was not justified in applying 9% interest on the terminal benefits that may have been received by the petitioner when the rate of interest prevailing in the year 2007 was not more than 6 per cent per annum. The Bank was not justified in adopting the salary of the dependents at Rs.1500/-when the sons of the petitioner did not have any permanent avocation. Further, it is reiterated that Rs.2,642/- under the head of pension, which was received by the petitioner and her family from the Indian Army could not have been taken into account by the respondent - Bank in computing the monthly family income. It is also contended that the calculation sheet indicates an amount of Rs.50,000/- paid for the funeral expenses of the deceased under the auspices of the Staff Welfare Fund, that has been unfairly added to the terminal benefits and an amount of Rs.15,411/- paid towards the loan account has not been deducted from the terminal benefits and therefore, the amount of Rs.2,70,004/- and the presumption that it would earn interest at 9 per cent is also bad. Further, the amount of Rs.90,000/- received by the petitioner was not under the head of ex-gratia. It was received under the head of Family Benefit Scheme. It is also stated that it cannot be denied that the salary of a job worker could not be taken into account and therefore, there is a patent error evident from the above aspects if the above aspects are taken into account in the Calculation Sheet provided by the respondent - Bank. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek that the petition be allowed in terms as prayed for.
Having regard to the above dispute, it is appropriate for the respondent - Bank to address the claim of the petitioner over again having due regard to the objections that are raised, as to the correctness of the figures adopted by the bank. Incidentally, it is to be taken into account that the petitioner is the widow of a deceased employee of the respondent - Bank. Therefore, if there is scope for a liberal consideration of the petitioner''s case, ends of justice would be met and therefore, if it is possible to avoid any further dispute, and if the bank is in a position to sympathetically consider the petitioner''s case and to grant nominal relief, it would go a long way in alleviating the suffering of the petitioner, even if she is receiving to some income from some sources, which the bank has claimed is far above the limit prescribed under the guidelines.
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to expedite consideration of the petitioner''s case and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, at the earliest, in any event, within a period of twelve weeks from today, if not earlier.