Bank of Baroda & Ors. vs Baljit Singh

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

21 June 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No(s). 624 of 2017

Result

Allowed

Bench

B.V. Nagarathna, Manoj Misra

Citation

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 977 : 2023 INSC 584

Headnote

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Criterion regarding financial status, non-fulfilment of – Held: Appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right – It is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment – In the present case, the 1998 Scheme applicable to the case of the respondent disentitles a candidate for compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula for calculation of monthly income if the same is not less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death – Since, the monthly income of the family was not less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased (respondent’s father) was drawing at the time of his death, the case of the respondent cannot be considered on compassionate basis – High Court erred in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of Trial Court – Judgment of High Court set aside – Suit of the respondent seeking declaration and mandatory injunction vis-à-vis his appointment in the appellant-Bank on compassionate basis, dismissed – Suit.

Suit – Relief of compassionate appointment sought – Held: Eligibility for compassionate appointment must be as per the applicable scheme – Courts cannot substitute a scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review – This would also apply to a suit filed seeking the relief of compassionate appointment – Service Law.

Balbir Kaur and Another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 493 : [2000] 3 SCR 1053 –

distinguished.

General Manager (D&PB) and Others vs. Kunti Tiwary (2004) 7 SCC 271; N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka (2019) 7 SCC 617; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 : [2019]

1 SCR 533; Indian Bank vs. Promila (2020) 2 SCC

729 : [2020] 1 SCR 408; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 : [2019] 2 SCR

432 – relied on.

Mohd. Farooq Bhati vs. S.B.B.J. (2009) 2 SCT 353 – referred to.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.338 of 2011 dated 11.12.2015. By the said judgment, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 16.12.2009 passed in C.A. No.75 of 2008 and has restored the judgment of the Trial Court passed in Original Suit No.201 of 2005. Consequently, the relief sought for by the respondent in the suit, i.e., declaration and mandatory injunction visa-vis his appointment in the appellant-Bank on compassionate ba

View Subscription Plans →