IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2164 of 2006
KIRAN SINHA
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS
with
CWJC No.3758 of 2006
MRITUNJAY KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS
with
CWJC No.10008 of 2006
MANORAMA DEVI
Versus
THE CHIEF G.M.,STATE BANK OF I
with
CWJC No.16004 of 2007
SUDHA SINHA
Versus
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.16518 of 2007
KUSUMLATA
Versus
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.16466 of 2007
LAKSHMI RAY
Versus
ALLHABAD BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.223 of 2008
VIJAY PRASAD SINGH
Versus
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.16512 of 2007
NEERAJ KUMAR
Versus
ALLHABAD BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.1072 of 2008
SANTOSH BHUSHAN BHARTI
-2-
Versus
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.1300 of 2008
RAKESH KUMAR ROY
Versus
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.2573 of 2008
SURAJ KUMAR
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D.,ALLAHABA
with
CWJC No.11573 of 2006
ARUN KUMAR
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN,MADHYA BIHAR GRAM
with
CWJC No.14532 of 2006
RAKESH SHARMA
Versus
MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS
with
CWJC No.6558 of 2008
NITIN SARVESH
Versus
THE ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS
-----------
10 26.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel appearing for the respondent banks.
By order dated 15th March, 2010 passed in
CWJC No.2164 of 2006 a learned Single Judge of this
Court noticed apparent inconsistency between views of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in paragraph 26 of
-3-
the judgment in the case of State Bank of India & others
Versus Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 and a Division
Bench judgment of this court in the case of State Bank
of India & others Versus Smt. Vindhwashini Devi,
2008 (4) PLJR 668.
We have considered the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Versus
Jaspal Kaur (supra) and we are of the considered view
that the said judgment was rendered in an entirely
different fact situation. In that case the death of Bank
employee was on 01.08.1999, application for
compassionate appointment filed on 05.02.2000 was
considered and rejected twice much before the SBI
scheme for payment of ex gratia lump sum amount in
place of compassionate appointment came into force
with effect from 04.08.2005. It was only before the Apex
Court that an attempt was made by the widow to take
advantage of provisions in the new scheme dated
04.08.2005 but such claim was not allowed by the Apex
Court on the ground that in the facts of that case the old
scheme was applicable.
-4-
Thus, in our opinion the observations in
paragraphs 26 in the case of State Bank of India Versus
Jaspal Kaur gives a different meaning when it is read
together with all the relevant facts. Only when it is cited
out of context then an apparent conflict may arise. Our
view is supported by views of the Supreme Court
expressed in a recent judgment dated 08.02.2010 in the
case of State Bank of India Versus Raj Kumar, 2010 (2)
BBCJ iv-353. In this case the Apex Court has
distinguished the judgment in the case of State Bank of
India Versus Jaspal Kaur and has further held that
clauses 14 and 15 of the new scheme will govern the
pending application because a scheme of compassionate
appointment, by its very nature does not vest any right of
appointment in an applicant. Thus, in view of the
aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court we find no
merit in the challenge to vires of clauses 14 and 15 of the
scheme dated 04.08.2005. The said scheme has to govern
the pending applications.
With the aforesaid finding all these cases
are referred back to the learned Single Judge for disposal
-5-
in accordance with law on the basis of facts of each case.
It is made clear that we have remitted the matters back to
the learned Single Judge only because in some cases
dispute of facts were raised that the claim of the
petitioners were actually no longer pending and had been
disposed of prior to the coming into force of the new
scheme but such disposal was contrary to law. If the
claim was actually not disposed of then as per Supreme
Court judgment noticed above it has to be considered in
accordance with new scheme.
Since the matters relate to compassionate
appointment they should be listed before appropriate
bench on priority basis within a week.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J )
sk