# Nanhi Devi (Inre 6382 S/S 2015) v. Dy. General Manager, Allahabad Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 21
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-02
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 565 of 2015
- **Bench:** Amreshwari Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nanhi-devi-inre-6382-s-s-2015-v-dy-general-manager-allahabad-bank-ors-43421
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Compassionate
Appointment-Allahabad Bank introducedscheme
by
circular
dated
03.12.14providing cut-off date as 05.08.2014-either
death
or
voluntarily
retirement
or
disappearance etc-admittedly the employee
died on 25.10.2013-not within zone of
consideration-in absence e of challenging
cut-of date before Single Judge-can not be
considered
by
Appellate
court-appeal
dismissed-as the petitioner already availed
ex-gratia payment under scheme prevailing
on that time.
Held: Para-6
We are unable to agree because the
circular
dated
03.12.2014
extracted
herein above categorically clarifies the
aforesaid position which was not under
challenge before the learned Single
Judge. The appellant had also accepted
the benefit under the earlier scheme of
ex-gratia payment.

## Text

1 All. Nanhi Devi (Inre 6382 S/S 2015) Vs. Dy. General Manager, Allahabad Bank & Ors.
21
of the Full Bench decision and in view of
the circular dated 03.03.2012 he is not
liable to be compelled to join in the
Government Railway Police does not
appear to be sustainable in the eyes of law
as the petitioner had attained the age of 47
years when the earlier writ petition filed
by him was still pending, therefore, he
ought to have raised this issue before this
Court in the said writ petition but not
having done so, this writ petition is barred
by the principle of constructive resjudicata and res-judicata, therefore, no
writ of mandamus as prayed for can be
issued. If at all permissible, the petitioner
may seek appropriate remedy by way of
review of the judgment dated 30.07.2015
passed in his earlier writ petition but no
such relief can be granted in this second
writ petition.
5. Subject to the above, the writ
petition is dismissed.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWARI PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
Special Appeal No. 565 of 2015
Nanhi Devi (Inre 6382 S/S 2015)
 ...Appellant
Versus
Dy. General Manager, Allahabad Bank &
Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Pradeep Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for the Respondents:
Gopal Kumar Srivastava
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Compassionate
Appointment-Allahabad Bank introducedscheme
by
circular
dated
03.12.14providing cut-off date as 05.08.2014-either
death
or
voluntarily
retirement
or
disappearance etc-admittedly the employee
died on 25.10.2013-not within zone of
consideration-in absence e of challenging
cut-of date before Single Judge-can not be
considered
by
Appellate
court-appeal
dismissed-as the petitioner already availed
ex-gratia payment under scheme prevailing
on that time.
Held: Para-6
We are unable to agree because the
circular
dated
03.12.2014
extracted
herein above categorically clarifies the
aforesaid position which was not under
challenge before the learned Single
Judge. The appellant had also accepted
the benefit under the earlier scheme of
ex-gratia payment.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava learned
counsel for the Bank.
2. The challenge raised in this appeal is
to the judgment dated 04.11.2015 on the
ground that the learned Single Judge has
committed an error by not considering the
applicability
of
this
new
scheme
promulgated vide circular dated 03.12.2014
and, therefore, denial of compassionate
appointment by the respondents cannot be
upheld even though the appellant has
received ex-gratia payment.
3.

We
have
considered
the
submissions raised. The circular dated
03.12.2014 as produced by the learned
counsel for the bank is as follows:-
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment in Allahabad Bank
22
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In terms of directive issued by
Government of India, forwarded by Indian
Banks' Association, advising opening of
compassionate appointment in Public Sector
Banks, a scheme for providing appointment
on
compassionate
grounds
has
been
introduced in our Bank as per approval
accorded by the Board of Directors in its
meeting held on 21st November, 2014. The
Scheme will be applicable from 5th August,
2014 and case of an employee (i) dying while
in service on or after 05.08.2014 or (ii)
retiring prematurely on medical ground after
observing necessary formalities as per Rule
on account of incapacitation for future work
before reaching the age of 55 years on or
after 05.08.2014 or (iii) becoming 'missing'
on or after 05.08.2014 with at least two
years of remaining service, will only be
governed by the scheme. The term 'employee'
in this case will be governed by the definition
contained in the Scheme. .
The Complete Scheme, together with
formats for Application for Sponsorship
by the spouse of the ex-employee [Form
No.01], Application for Compassionate
Appointment by the Candidate [Form No.
02] and Affidavit to be executed by the
Dependent Family members of the exemployee [Form No.03] is annexed to this
Instruction Circular as Annexure-1 for
careful noting by all concerned.
As per clarifications received from the
Government of India, forwarded by Indian
Banks' Association, all the cases for exgratia pending before 05.08.2014 are not
affected by the new Scheme. Accordingly,
cases of compassionate benefit arsing out of
death of an employee while in service or
premature retirement on medical ground
before reaching the age 55 years due to
incapacitation for future work, occurring on
or before 04.08.2014 will continue to be
governed by Allahabad Bank Scheme for
Payment of Lumpsum Ex-Gratia Amount in
lieu of Appointment on Compassionate
Grounds & Appointment of Dependents of
Deceased Employees on Compassionate
Grounds in Exceptional Cases' last updated
vide
H.O
Instruction
Circular
No.
10203/PA/2008-09/35 dated 17.10.2008.
4. A perusal thereof demonstrates
that the scheme would apply from
05.08.2014 in the case of an employee
dying while in service on or after
05.08.2014. In the instant case, admittedly
the death of the employee took place on
25.10.2013
that
is
prior
to
the
enforcement of the new circular.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
has relied on the judgment in the case of
State Bank of India vs. Sri Raj Kumar
decided on 08.02.2010 by the Apex Court
contend that the new scheme would apply
even if the death had taken prior to the
enforcement of the new scheme.
6. We are unable to agree because
the circular dated 03.12.2014 extracted
herein above categorically clarifies the
aforesaid position which was not under
challenge before the learned Single Judge.
The appellant had also accepted the
benefit under the earlier scheme of exgratia payment.
7. in such a situation, even if she had
not disclosed the same, the same would
not reflect upon the merits of the case as
even
otherwise
the
03.12.2014
clarificatory circular does not entitle the
petitioner to raise any such claim.
8. With these observations, the writ
petition is dismissed.
-------
1 All. The State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Mahila Mahavidyalaya Kidwai Nagar Kanpur 6389 (M/S) 2011
23
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 610 of 2015
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Mahila Mahavidyalaya Kidwai Nagar Kanpur
6389 (M/S) 2011 .
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Verma, Pali Anural
High Court Rules-1952-Chapter VIII Rule5-Special Appeal -3 1⁄2 years unexplained
delay-Learned Single Judge considering
pure
legal
aspect-quashed
the
G.O.
06.01.11 imposing ban on appointment of
class 4th employee in Degree and Post
Degree College affiliated to universityignoring
statute-meaning
therebyoverriding legislation
-such practice of
litigation-can not be appreciated-appeal
dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Held: Para-9
We are also surprised and we do not find
any explanation that once the State itself
had implemented the judgment of the
learned Single Judge way back in the year
2013 it had every opportunity to assail
any such orders two years ago. As noted
above the appeal has been filed after 3 1⁄2
years, moreso when the statutes have
been amended on 24.2.2015. The appeal
appears to have been prepared only to
cover
up
the
actions
under
the
Government order that was sought to be
enforced by the appellant and that had
outlived itself for the reasons given by the
learned Single Judge, both on legal and
factual grounds. The aforesaid exercise of
filing
of
the
appeal
by
the
State,
therefore, at this belated stage has
neither been validly explained on delay
nor is there any plausible argument so as
to find out a ray of hope on the merits of
the claim as well. Consequently, for all
the reasons aforesaid this exercise of
drafting and filing of the appeal does not
appear to be for protecting the interest of
the State or raising a valid challenge to
the learned Single Judge judgement on
any legal grounds. The entire exercise of
filing of the appeal appears to have been
raised
on
the
asking
of
the
legal
department without there being any
cogent
ground
available
to
raise
a
challenge and without there being any
plausible explanation for the delay.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. This highly belated appeal has
been filed by the State. It is reported to be
beyond time by 3 years 2 months and 17
days.
2. In addition to the fact that there is
an inordinate and inexcusable delay, we
further find that the explanation set up is
not worth accepting and is an effort made
on behalf of the State to reopen an issue
that does not deserve to be reopened at all
on any valid legal principle and on merits
as well.
3. The appeal had been taken up by
us earlier and on 5.1.2016 a request was
made on behalf of the State that the
appeal be taken up on 6.1.2015 to enable
the learned Advocate General to appear in
the matter. Today, again an adjournment
was being sought, but we do not find any
good
reason
to
grant
any
such
accommodation in this highly belated and
incompetent appeal nor is there any
reason to entertain the same otherwise as
well.