1 APHC010134222015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 36167 OF 2015 Between: 1. Bandla Bujjamma, W/o late Laxman Rao, Aged about 59 years, R/o 11/148, Darga Street, Maya Bazar, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street Koti, Hyderabad. 2. Deputy General Manager, And Circle development Officer, H& R Department, Bank Street Koti, Hyderabad. 3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ADB Kovur, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the communication dt.15/04/2014 and 17/04/2014 of R2 and R3 respectively in rejecting claim of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment as illegal arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and Bank 2 policy as envisaged in the circular dt.04/08/2005 consequently to direct the respondents to pay ex-gratia in lump-sum to the petitioner duly considering the representations dt.24/02/2014, 04/04/2014 and 15/05/2014 IA NO: 1 OF 2015 (WPMP 46515 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representations dt.24/02/2014, 04/04/2014 and 15/05/2014 of petitioner for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment Counsel for the Petitioner: M RAVINDRA Counsel for the Respondents: K B RAMANNA DORA The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.36167 OF 2015 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue an appropriate writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the communication dt.15/04/2014 and 17/04/2014 of R2 and R3 respectively in rejecting claim of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment as illegal arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and Bank policy as envisaged in the circular dt.04/08/2005 consequently to direct the respondents to pay ex-gratia in lump-sum to the petitioner duly considering the representations dt.24/02/2014, 04/04/2014 and 15/05/2014 and to pass…..” 2. Heard Sri T.V.Suman, learned counsel representing Sri M.Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Venkata Challa Rao, learned counsel for Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner‟s husband joined in the 1st respondent bank and while he 4 was working as a Senior Assistant in the 3rd respondent branch at Kovur, SPSR Nellore District, he died on 02.08.1999, while he was in service. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner who is widow of the deceased employee by stating the factual aspects and also her pathetic condition etc., preferred an application on 07.01.2000 to the respondent authorities to consider her case for compassionate appointment, i.e. within the period of one year from the date of death of the deceased employee. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P8 (letter dated 15.04.2014), where under the 2nd respondent bank authority addressed a letter to the petitioner, informing that the petitioner‟s application for compassionate appointment dated 07.01.2000 was rejected by the bank on 05.08.2002, on the ground that the financial position of late Sri B.Laxman Rao(petitioner‟s husband), as on the date of his death was considered as „non penurious‟ and also the scheme of payment of exgratia in lumpsum in the 1st respondent bank came into force with effect from 04.08.2005, as such petitioner is not eligible for the said scheme for exgratia also. 5 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the alleged rejected letter dated 05.08.2002 by the respondent bank authorities is not served on the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is under the impression that her application is still pending consideration before the respondent bank authorities. 7. In that premise only, the petitioner preferred series of representations dated 24.02.2014, 04.04.2014 and 15.05.2014 to the concerned bank authorities stating her financial crisis and facing multifarious problems physically, mentally and fiscally. In fact, petitioner in view of afflux of time, by confining her request only to release the exgratia amount as per the scheme started by the respondent bank, but the same was not acted upon. As such, she was forced to file the instant writ petition by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, represented by Sri Ch.Venkata Challa Rao, while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner‟s husband was appointed in the respondent 6 bank and while he was working as Senior Assistant in 3rd respondent branch of the bank, expired on 02.08.1999. 9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that consequent to the petitioner‟s application dated 07.01.2000, her case was considered and rejected by the bank authorities way back in the year 2002 itself and they also communicated the said order dated 05.08.2002 to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner‟s case is liable to be dismissed, as she is not comes under the parameters of the scheme, which is entitled for exgratia amount as the scheme came into force from 04.08.2005 only. In nutshell, the respondents‟ bank is denying the case of the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, the writ petition is instituted in the year 2015. 11. On 04.02.2025, this Court passed the following order: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is filed seeking the ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment questioning the rejection of the claim of the petitioner vide communication dated 15.04.2014 and 17.04.2014 of the 2nd & 3rd respondents respectively. 7 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner‟s husband while working as Senior Assistant in the respondent bank died in service on 02.08.1999. Then the petitioner made application for compassionate appointment on 07.01.2000. For which the respondent counsel submits that the said application was rejected on 05.08.2002 by producing the copy of the same, on the ground that the financial position of the family of the deceased employee as on the date of his death was considered to be non-penurious. But in reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the said rejection proceedings were not communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner was in dark till 15.04.2014 when she made another application seeking compassionate appointment. On the submission of the same, then the respondent bank informed that already her original application dated 07.01.2000 was considered and rejected vide proceedings dated 05.08.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 24.02.2014 and 04.04.2014 seeking sanction of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment but the same was already rejected by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 15.04.2014 and 17.04.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent. But there is no information in the record with respect to the service of the above said proceedings of the respondent bank dated 05.08.2002 on the petitioner. For which the respondent bank is directed to produce the same. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank seeks time to produce the relevant record showing the proof of service of the same on the petitioner. He also shall produce the scheme governing the compassionate appointments in the 8 respondent bank as on 02.08.1999 the day on which the petitioner‟s husband passed away in service. For production of the above said information, list on 18.02.2025.” 12. In terms of orders of this Court dated 04.02.2025, the Bank has not submitted any relevant record to substantiate its assertions. In fact, instant case is adjourned to 18.02.2025 and on the said date also, the case was further adjourned at the request made by the respondents. Thereafter, the matter was again listed today, i.e. 31.01.2026. Unfortunately, even after lapse of 11 months from the date of this Court‟s specific direction dated 04.02.2025 also, the respondent bank not able to submit the relevant record and again sought for time. 13. Admittedly, the bank not filed any affidavit seeking extension of time or their incapacity to produce the relevant documents in compliance of this Court‟s order dated 04.02.2025. Hence, basing on the material available on record, this Court is constrained to proceed with the lis. 14. After going through the above over all facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the admitted facts that right from 9 the year 2015 to till now i.e. 31.01.2026, the respondent bank merely taken a plea that the rejection order dated 05.08.2002 was addressed to the petitioner. But, inspite of the specific directions of this Court dated 04.02.2025, to produce any proof in support of their plea, the bank has not produced any acknowledgment that the petitioner was communicated with the rejection order dated 05.08.2002. 15. It is well settled principle that mere plea unsupported by proof or evidence cannot be acted upon and has no legal sanctity. 16. To apply the above ratio, the respondents‟ bank is miserably failed to establish its plea of communication of rejection order dated 05.08.2002 to the petitioner. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner‟s case deserves to be allowed and the respondents‟ bank is bound to consider the case of the petitioner. 17. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances, the widow of the employee of the bank, Smt.K.Rukminamma, whose husband also died in harness, instituted W.P.No.36160 of 2015 before this Court. This Court after appraising all facts and circumstances and also 10 taking into consideration the very scheme of compassionate appointment and it‟s applicability, pleased to allow the said writ petition vide orders dated 24.10.2024. 18. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents‟ bank not disputed about passing of said orders. Significantly, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of orders dated 24.10.2024 made in W.P.No.36160 of 2015, the bank released exgratia amount in favour of the concerned also. 19. In view of the above, considering the facts involved in the lis, as the instant case is also squarely covered by the orders of this Court dated 24.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.36160 of 2015, this Court is inclined to pass similar orders in the instant case. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms: i) in view of afflux of time, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application to the respondents seeking payment of the ex-gratia amount, as the respondents have replaced the scheme of compassionate appointment with the scheme for payment of Ex-gratia Lumpsum Amount with effect from 04.08.2005; 11 ii) on such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with the existing schemes within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; and iii) there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:31.01.2026 Rns 12 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.36167 of 2015 Date:31.01.2026 Rns