Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Respondent-writ petitioner’s father who was working in appellant-Bank applied for voluntary premature retirement on the ground of medical incapacitation – Appellant permitted the same and he was relived from duty w.e.f. 26.06.2015 – Respondent applied for compassionate appointment in place of his father in terms of compassionate appointment scheme of the appellant – In the application, respondent supressed the fact that he was employed in a private Bank – The Committee constituted by appellant-Bank under the scheme rejected the respondent’s application on the ground that family of retired employee was not indigent as required under the scheme – High Court held that family was indigent or not could not be a ground for refusing compassionate appointment and directed the appellant to consider the case of respondent for compassionate appointment – On appeal, held: There is financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the compassionate Appointment Scheme of the Appellant bank and such Rules have to be construed strictly as compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equity – The application and the writ petition of Respondent was liable to be rejected alone on the ground of suppression of material facts – The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. [Para 20][1083-C]
2. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress. [Para 21][1083-E]
3. As held by this court in State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661, the claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the Scheme framed by the employer for such employment, and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. There could be no automatic appointment merely on application. The respondent-writ petitioner did not have any special claim or special right to employment as dependent family member of the retired employee. [Para 22][1083F-G]
4. The High Court completely overlooked the fact that the respondent had suppressed his appointment with ICICI Bank in his application for compassionate appointment. The writ petition was liable to be rejected on that ground alone. [Para 23][1083-H; 1084-A]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 : [1994] 3 SCR 893; Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 : [2015]
9 SCR 724; Balbir Kuar & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 493 : [2000] 3 SCR 1053; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994)
4 SCC 138 : [1994] 3 SCR 893; Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary & Ors. (2020) 19 SCC 426; State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 : 2010 (3) SCALE 635 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.