Disposed

Satyanarayan Yadav v. State Bank of India

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jan 2024WPS/3052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment or an ex-gratia lump sum for his deceased father who was a deceased SBI employee. The court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to file a fresh application for ex-gratia relief within 30 days for the bank to decide within 60 days, condoning the delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh application for ex-gratia amount in 30 days; Bank to decide within 60 days.

Satyanarayan Yadav Vs State Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 3052 of 2019

¶5

Satyanaryan Yadav, S/o Late Shri Baldev Prasad, Aged about 35 years, R/o Sitapara Shitla Ward 32 In front of Vishvwakarma Furniture, Ambikapur, Thesil & District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Bank of India, Through It's Chief General Manager, Bhopal Circle, Pension Provident Fund & Gratuity Department, 3^rd Floor, Local Head Office, Hoshngabad Road, Bhopal -462011 (M.P.)

¶9

The General Manager (Administration), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office Korba, Area 2, Niharika Road, District Korba (C.G.) - 495677

¶10

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ambikapur Main Branch, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶11

The Branch Manager (H.R.), Human Resources Department, State Bank of India, Ambikapur Branch, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶12

The General Manager (Administrative Department), State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar. Chandravanshi

Order On Board

22-01-2024

Heard.

Instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for

¶21

¶22

the entire records leading to passing of the order impugned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 (ANNEXURE P-11), and kindly issue the writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per the policy dated 22.05.2002. (Cir Do/P & HRD/41 of 2002-03) and grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶24

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus issuing direction to the respondent authorities to pay the amount of ex-gratia in alternative with the amount of interest.

¶25

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶26

10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶27

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has filed instant petition for grant of compassionate appointment, but he fairly submits that as father of the petitioner namely Baldev Prasad, who was working as Senior Head Messenger in the State Bank of India, Ambikapur Branch, expired on 30.07.2005, the petitioner filed an application before the Respondents – Bank for grant of compassionate appointment on 22.11.2017, at that time, there was no such policy adopted by the State Bank of India for grant of compassionate appointment, rather there was a policy to grant ex-gratia amount to the dependent of the deceased employee, which has

¶28

¶29

also been settled by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. Smt. Sweta Singh 1 , in which, judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka & others 2 has been relied upon, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be disposed of directing respondents authorities to grant ex gratia lumpsum amount to the petitioner in accordance with applicable Rules / Policy in lieu of compassionate appointment.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for respondents/Bank would submit that he has no objection to allow limited prayer made by petitioner. He would further submit that application filed by the petitioner had been disposed of vide order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P-11), wherein, Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal has already observed that “the Petitioner has the liberty to apply through a fresh application for grant of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. The same application may be considered by the Competent authority of the Bank, subject to approval of condonation of delay in submitting the said ex-gratia application. Hence, in view of above, limited prayer, sought for by the petitioner, may be allowed.

¶31

Having considered the contention puforth by learned counsel for the petitioner that while filing application by the petitioner, there was no prevailing policy of the Bank to grant compassionate appointment, rather as per prevailing policy, dependent member of deceased employee is to be granted ex-gratia lumpsum amount; also considering the submissions

¶32

1 Writ Appeal No. 199 of 2022, decided on 19.09.2022

¶33

2 (2020) 7 SCC 617

¶34

¶35

made by counsel for the respondents/Bank and the observations made by Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal vide order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P-11) that if petitioner filed an application for grant of ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment, then the Bank is ready to consider & decide the aforesaid application. Therefore, considering aforesaid fact & situation of the case, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file appropriate fresh application before the respondents / competent authority for grant of ex gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment alongwith copy of this order within a period of 30 days from today and, in turn, the respondents authorities shall consider and decide application in accordance with applicable policy / Rules governing the field within a further period of 60 days after filing of application by the petitioner.

¶36

So far as delay in filing the application is concerned, since the matter relates to grant of ex gratia lumpsum amount to the petitioner, who is dependent upon the deceased employee (father) of RespondentsBank, to which, he is making efforts since long, therefore, in these circumstances, delay in filing the application for grant of ex gratia lumpsum amount be considered liberally.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations & directions, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶39

Amit/-

¶40

Satyanarayan Yadav v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Yadav v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Ram Vs Kriparam Dhobi

Dinesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhan Vs Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs

Ramesh Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kharru Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh