STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus SHEO SHANKAR TEWARI

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 08-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
SHEO SHANKAR TEWARI
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30335 of  2017)
FEBRUARY 08, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Substitution of
original scheme under which appointment on compassionate
grounds could be made, by a scheme under which only ex gratia
payment to be made over to the dependents – The decisions of
Supreme Court, relied upon by the petitioner proceeded on the
premise that there was no vested right to have the matter considered
under the former scheme and the governing scheme would be one
which was in force when the applications came up for consideration
– The decision relied upon by the respondent proceeded on a
different principle and stipulated that the governing scheme would
be the former scheme and any subsequent that came into force after
the claim was raised would not be applicable – The principles
emanating from these two lines of decisions  were not consistent
and did not reconcile – Therefore, matter required consideration by
a larger Bench – The Registry directed to place the papers of this
case before the Chief Justice of India for constituting a Bench of
appropriate strength to dispose of the petition – Reference to larger
bench.
State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar  (2010)
11 SCC 661; MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh
(2014) 13 SCC 583 : [2013] 10 SCR 1; Canara Bank
and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 :
[2015] 9 SCR 724; SBI v. Jaspal Kaur case (2007) 9
SCC 571 :  [2007] 2 SCR 101 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2010) 11 SCC 661
 referred to
Para 4
[2013] 10 SCR 1
 referred to
Para 5
[2015] 9 SCR 724
 referred to
Para 6
[2007] 2 SCR 101
 referred to
Para 8
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 718
718
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 30335 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow in Special Appeal No.
363 of 2017.
Sanjay Kapur, Bharath Gangadharan, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms.
Mansi Kapur, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Satish Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
Rajesh Maurya, Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. The father of the respondent
was working with the petitioner-bank and while in service died on
11.11.2004.  A request was made for appointment on compassionate
grounds by the respondent on 03.03.2005.  As on that date, compassionate
appointment could be granted to the dependents of employees dying in
harness.  However, instructions were issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance on 14.07.2004 to frame an appropriate scheme for
payment of monetary assistance in lieu of compassionate appointment.
Vide its communication dated 31.07.2004 the IBA1 had advised the banks
to frame their own schemes based on said model.
2. Before the application of the respondent could be considered,
the petitioner-bank formally approved a scheme for payment of ex-gratia
lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment vide its scheme
circulated on 04.08.2005.  The relevant clause namely Clause 15(vi)
provided:-
“With effect from the date the “SBI Scheme for payment of ex-
gratia lumpsum amount” comes into force the bank’s scheme of
compassionate appointments shall be deemed abolished/withdrawn
and no request for compassionate appointment shall be entertained
or considered by the bank under any circumstance.”
3. According to the petitioner-bank, the application of the
respondent for compassionate appointment could not therefore be
considered.  The challenge to the action on part of the bank by way of
Writ Petition was accepted by the Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court which decisions are presently in appeal.
 1 Indian Banks’ Association
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SHEO SHANKAR TEWARI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-bank relied upon the
decision of this Court in State Bank of India and another vs. Raj
Kumar2 and particularly paragraphs 2, 8, 12 and 13 which are to the
following effect:-
“2. The respondent’s father employed as a Messenger in the
appellant Bank, died on 1-10-2004. The respondent’s mother made
applications dated 6-6-2005 and 14-6-2005 requesting for his
appointment on compassionate grounds. When the applications
were being processed and verified, the Compa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.