Telangana High Court
WP/22993/2010 of Mrs.Maimoona Jawad Vs Vijaya Bank,Head office,Personal Department on 29 December 2016
P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22993 of 2010 Date : 29.12.2016 Between : Mrs Maimoona Jawad W/o Late M Jawad Hussain R/o 104, Shadab AParaments, Near Nilofar Hospital, Red Hills Hyderabad Petitioner And Vijaya Bank, Head Office Personal DeParament Rep by its General Manager, M G Road,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
Date : 29.12.2016
Between :
Mrs Maimoona Jawad W/o Late M Jawad Hussain R/o 104, Shadab AParaments, Near Nilofar Hospital, Red Hills Hyderabad
And
Vijaya Bank,
Head Office Personal DeParament Rep by its General Manager, M G Road, Bangalore and others The Court made the following:
Petitioner
Respondents
ORAL ORDER:
Husband of the petitioner while working as Assistant Manager in the respondent bank died on 28.4.1997. He was survived by, petitioner and minor son aged 7 years. Petitioner submitted application for provision of compassionate appointment or in the alternative payment of exgratia amount. Request of the petitioner was rejected by proceedings dated 17.12.2008, which is impugned in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for provision of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not fulfilling the financial criteria for such claim and is not entitled to exgratia as per the terms and conditions of the scheme prevailing at the time of death of her husband. Petitioner submitted representation on 12.1.2009 explaining that she does not have income of Rs.5000/- as stated in the order impugned and that she is entitled to compassionate appointment or exgratia. Petitioner has also caused legal notices. Since, there was no response to the request made by the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel further submitted that no proper reasons are assigned while rejecting the claim that petitioner is not drawing the amount as held and there is no basis for such determination. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CANARA BANK AND ANOTHER Vs M. MAHESH KUMAR[1].
3. The scheme of provision of exgratia is governed by circular No. 233/2004 dated 20.11.2004 filed as Annexure P-2. Para 5.0.0. deals with eligibility criteria; Para 5.1.0 provides that the dependants monthly income from all sources should be less that 60 % of the last drawn salary of the employee to be eligible under the scheme. Para 5.2.0 prescribes the method of calculation of monthly income under various headings. It is the assertion of the learned counsel for petitioner that in terms of this calculation procedure, petitioner is not crossing the limit imposed, therefore the benefit of at-least exgratia ought to have been extended.
4. A bare perusal of the order impugned itself would make it clear that it is bereft of reasons. No reasons are assigned as to why petitioner is not entitled to claim exgratia on account of death of her husband while in service.
5. Having regard to the same, impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to the respondent bank to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 12.1.2009, legal notices issued on 10.11.2009 and 21.1.2010 and assess whether petitioner is eligible for grant of exgratia in terms of provision contained in Para 5.0.0 of their circular No. 233/2004 and judgment of the Supreme Court in CANARA BANK AND ANOTHER. According to the assessment of the respondent bank, if the petitioner is not entitled, by assigning due reasons and indicating the calculation memo as to how she is not entitled order should be communicated to the petitioner. A decision be taken in this regard and communicated to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.
______________
P NAVEEN RAO,J
Date : 29.12.2016