Canara Bank vs Ajithkumar G.K.

(ii) medical incapacitation resulting in the employee’s unfitness to continue in service, for which benevolence is shown by offering an appointment may not exist and thereby the very object of such appointment could stand frustrated – It is not prudent or wise to reject a claim only because of the time taken by the court(s) to decide the issue before it – Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly – A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance – However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment under consideration – If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection – In the instant case the death of the respondent’s father, in this case, occurred in December 2001 – Now, it is 2025 – The respondent cannot be blamed for the delay, since he was diligently pursuing his claim before the appellant and thereafter before the High Court – Thus, irrespective of how old the respondent is presently, his age cannot be determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a consideration of the same on merits. [Paras 25, 26, 27 and 28] Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Assessment of financial condition of deceased’s family cannot be brushed aside: Held: In the instant case, only the deceased’s spouse and son (respondent) could count as dependants – If the respondent’s father would have received a pension amount of Rs. 6398/- and burdened to feed himself as well as his two dependants, the amount of family pension initially sanctioned, i.e., Rs. 4637.92 could not have been seen as insufficient or inadequate for feeding two mouths – It is also not in dispute that the net terminal benefits in a sum of Rs.

3.09 lakh paid to the respondent/his mother would have been the same amount which the deceased would have received as terminal benefits after superannuation, had he been alive – Thus, it is not a case where the death of the respondent’s father brought about such dire consequence and/or disastrous outcome that the respondent and his mother would have to cope with miserable effects which, as the respondent urged, could be remedied only by offering an appointment on compassionate ground – The scheme of 1993 envisages assessment of the suitability of the claimant for compassionate appointment – In several decisions it has been held that the clauses forming part of the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment have to be followed to the letter – In the instant case, without the respondent having been subjected to a suitability test, the Division Bench plainly fell in error in directing the respondent’s appointment in the category of clerk – Respondent further contended that he should have been granted relaxation of age – The decision initially taken that the respondent was over-aged had been set aside in the first round of litigation and, therefore, the principle of res judicata is indeed attracted – Order of appellant refusing to grant the prayer of respondent for compassionate appointment was unexceptionable – Power u/art. 142 of Constitution invoked – Appellant directed to make a lumpsum payment of Rs.2.5 lakh to the respondent. [Paras 32, 33, 34, 46, 49]

Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – Settled principles – Discussed. [Para 11]

Compassionate Appointment – Grey Area – Question as to which rule/policy/scheme would be applicable for consideration of an application for compassionate appointment, i.e., the rule/policy/scheme prevailing on the date of death, or the date of consideration of the application –Divergent views – Discussed. [Paras 12-23]

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Objective of – Claim for compassionate appointment, when ought to be considered and granted:

Held: The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive – There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds – Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family – It is only in “hand-tomouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied – Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance – This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner. [Para 29]

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Claim for – Age of claimant – Whether relaxation in age to be granted: Held: The question of relaxation in age would arise only when the claimant satisfies the other requirements of the scheme for compassionate appointment – No dependant, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of agebar – If the age of the claimant is found to be within the relaxable limit, discretion is available to be exercised in an appropriate case – Relaxation of age is a step to be taken in the final stages of the entire process and it would arise for consideration provided all other conditions for appointment are satisfied – In the instant case, the family of the deceased is not found to be indigent, the first threshold is not crossed and thereby, the process does not progress any further – In such a case, it would be in idle formality to consider whether relaxation of age should be granted. [Para 35] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or XLI, r.33 – Appellate Court – Powers of – Discussed:

Held: Power of an appellate court is circumscribed by laws – Unless a particular case in appeal is so exceptional in nature that the appellate court considers it imperative to exercise power akin to power conferred on appellate courts by Or XLI R.33 CPC, such power should normally not be exercised. [Para 36]