The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that a delay in filing an application for ex-gratia payment under a bank’s compassionate appointment scheme does not automatically disqualify a bereaved family, provided the delay arose from a bona fide attempt to secure compassionate appointment. This ruling reinforces the humanitarian intent behind such schemes and mandates a merit-based reconsideration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shanti Devi, widow of Shri Sampat Lal Sharma, a deceased employee of UCO Bank, sought financial relief under the bank’s Revised Scheme for Payment of Ex-gratia Amount in lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, dated 07.11.2007. Her husband died while in service on 22.02.2013, leaving behind her and three daughters. As the sole breadwinner’s death created immediate financial distress, she initially applied for compassionate appointment of her son-in-law, Shri Omprakash, whom she claimed as her adopted son.
Key Facts
- Shri Sampat Lal Sharma died in service on 22.02.2013.
- The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment of her son-in-law, Omprakash, on or before 20.07.2013.
- The bank rejected this application by letter dated 24.01.2014, citing lack of registered adoption deed and no provision for son-in-law as dependent.
- The petitioner then applied for ex-gratia payment under the Revised Scheme dated 07.11.2007 by letter dated 02.09.2014.
- The bank rejected the ex-gratia claim by letter dated 02.01.2015, solely on the ground that the application was filed beyond the six-month deadline from the date of death (i.e., after 22.08.2013).
- The petitioner had no other source of income and was actively pursuing relief through both avenues without interruption.
- No objection was raised by other family members regarding the petitioner’s claim.
Procedural History
- 22.02.2013: Death of Shri Sampat Lal Sharma, employee of UCO Bank.
- Before 20.07.2013: Petitioner submits application for compassionate appointment of son-in-law.
- 24.01.2014: Bank rejects compassionate appointment application.
- 02.09.2014: Petitioner submits application for ex-gratia payment.
- 02.01.2015: Bank rejects ex-gratia claim on grounds of delay.
- 13.10.2015: Writ Petition No. 13090/2015 filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
- 08.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Kuldeep Mathur.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the bank’s order dated 02.01.2015 rejecting her ex-gratia claim and directed the bank to grant the ex-gratia payment with all consequential benefits under the Revised Scheme dated 07.11.2007.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a delay in filing an application for ex-gratia payment under a compassionate scheme, beyond the stipulated six-month period, can be condoned when the delay was caused by a bona fide attempt to secure compassionate appointment, and the applicant is otherwise eligible under the scheme.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the delay in filing the ex-gratia application was not due to negligence or laches, but because the petitioner was actively pursuing the compassionate appointment of her son-in-law, which was pending adjudication until 24.01.2014. Once that avenue was closed, she immediately applied for ex-gratia relief. The scheme’s objective is humanitarian, and technical rejection on delay would defeat its purpose. The petitioner was not disqualified under Clause 3 of the scheme.
For the Respondent
No appearance was made on behalf of the bank or its representatives. No counter-affidavit or written submission was filed to contest the petitioner’s claim on merits.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Revised Scheme dated 07.11.2007, which explicitly aims to provide immediate financial succour to the families of deceased employees to help them overcome sudden economic hardship. The Court emphasized that the scheme is not a rigid administrative procedure but a social welfare measure.
"It would amount to a travesty of justice if the family of a deceased employee is deprived of both compassionate appointment as well as Ex-gratia payment merely on technical grounds, despite the petitioner not suffering from any ineligibility under Clause 3 of the scheme."
The Court noted that the petitioner had pursued her claim continuously and in good faith, first seeking compassionate appointment and then, upon its rejection, promptly seeking ex-gratia relief. The bank’s rigid application of the six-month deadline, without considering the context of the prior application, was found to be arbitrary and contrary to the scheme’s spirit.
The Court further held that the bank, as a public sector institution, has a duty to act with empathy and administrative pragmatism. A delay caused by the pendency of a related, legitimate claim cannot be treated as a fatal defect, especially where the applicant is otherwise eligible and the delay is neither mala fide nor inordinate.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The bank’s order dated 02.01.2015 rejecting the ex-gratia claim on grounds of delay is quashed and set aside. The competent authority of UCO Bank is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for ex-gratia payment under the Revised Scheme dated 07.11.2007 on its merits and in accordance with law. The reconsideration shall be completed within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in Ex-Gratia Applications May Be Excused
- Practitioners may now argue that a delay in filing ex-gratia claims under bank schemes is excusable if the applicant was actively pursuing a related compassionate appointment claim.
- The burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate mala fide or inordinate delay, not merely technical non-compliance.
Scheme Objectives Trump Procedural Rigidity
- Public sector employers must interpret compassionate schemes in light of their humanitarian purpose, not as bureaucratic checklists.
- Courts will scrutinize rigid application of timelines where the applicant has acted in good faith and remains eligible under substantive criteria.
Documentation of Continuous Pursuit Is Critical
- Applicants should maintain records of all applications, correspondence, and responses to establish a continuous and bona fide pursuit of relief.
- Legal notices or representations made during pendency of one claim should be cited as evidence of good faith when filing subsequent claims.
