Sympathy alone cannot give remedy to the party

Kritika Pandey | Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda | 13th January 2020

Indian Bank & Ors. Vs. Promila & Anr., C.A. NO.2798 of 2010

Facts:

• Jagdish Raj, husband of respondent-1 and father of respondent-2, was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Shroff in the appellant-Bank, where he continued to work until his unfortunate demise. Consequent to his death, the benefits available for the family of Jagdish Raj were calculated and sanctioned but on account of deductions for staff housing and vehicle loans, post adjustment, a net payment was made to the family, apart from the monthly pension.
• Respondent-1 was already employed at the time of the demise of her husband, which came to the knowledge of the appellant-Bank, later. The cause for the present dispute arises from an application made on behalf of the respondent-2 seeking compassionate employment on account of the demise of Jagdish Raj. 
• According to the appellant, a scheme which was applicable on the death of Jagdish Raj was made for compassionate appointment, but subject to the terms & conditions of the scheme. And according to the scheme dependant will either be paid gratuity or an appropriate employment for one dependent under compassionate grounds.
• The High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide impugned order, granted Rs.2 lakh ex gratia payment and also to consider the application for compassionate appointment.

Held:

• There is no provision in this Scheme for any ex gratia payment. The option of compassionate appointment was available only if the full amount of gratuity was not taken.
• Thus, having taken the full amount of gratuity, the option of compassionate appointment really was not available to the respondents.
• Set aside the impugned order given by High Court of Punjab & Haryana.