Ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment is ineligible if the original application was not pending upon the scheme's commencement.

The petitioner is the widow of Satish Kumar, a Central Bank of India employee who died in harness on March 12, 2003.

On April 10, 2003, she applied for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The Bank rejected this request via letter dated March 14, 2005.

Subsequently, on June 16, 2006, the Bank introduced a new Scheme (effective from December 14, 2005) providing for ex-gratia lump-sum payments in lieu of compassionate appointments.

The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus for ex-gratia payment, family pension, and contributory GPF.

The Bank contested the ex-gratia claim, arguing that the petitioner's case was not "pending" when the new Scheme commenced.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia lump-sum payment under the Bank’s 2006 Scheme given that her application for compassionate appointment was rejected prior to the Scheme's effective date.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension and contributory provident fund benefits upon meeting certain contribution requirements.

The court applied the Central Bank of India Circular No. CO:HRD:R&P:2006-07:57, specifically Paragraphs 2 and 4, which stipulate that the new ex-gratia scheme applies only to cases pending as of December 14, 2005, or received thereafter.

The court also distinguished the precedent of *The State Bank of India & Ors. v. Smt. Vindhwashini Devi & Anr.* (L.P.A. No. 514 of 2008), where the "pending application" rule was used to grant relief because the specific application in that case remained undecided on the date the new policy was published.

The court found that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was formally rejected on March 14, 2005, which was nine months prior to the new Scheme’s effective date of December 14, 2005.

Consequently, her case was not "pending" as required by Paragraph 4 of the Circular.

The ratio from *Vindhwashini Devi* was held inapplicable because, unlike that case, the petitioner's claim had already been finalized and closed before the policy shift.

Regarding pensionary benefits, the court noted the Bank’s admission in its counter-affidavit and the petitioner's subsequent written consent to the Bank's proposal (Annexure-11), establishing a mutual agreement for the disbursement of family pension and GPF subject to proportionate contributions.

However, the court directed the Bank to process and issue the family pension and contributory provident fund within two months, provided the petitioner complies with the contribution terms admitted in her consent letter.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.