IMPORTANT POINT
The specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations are better equipped to decide the cases of compassionate appointments on facts of the case and the Court cannot order appointment on compassionate ground, de hors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions and the hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to compassionate appointment de hors the statutory provisions.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Compassionate Appointments—Guidelines regarding scheme of appointment of dependents of deceased employees—Financial position of the family—Unless financial condition of the family is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made—Bank having already paid a sum of Rs. 4,57,607/- as terminal benefits to the family of the deceased—A sum of Rs. 2055/- p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly and Rs. 3800/- p.m. as notional interest on investment of Rs. 4,57,607/—Competent Authority refused appointment holding that financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves—Whether High Court was justified allowing application for appointment holding that the income was not sufficient for the bare maintenance of the family—(No)—Court cannot order appointment on compassionate ground, de hors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions—Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to compassionate appointment de hors the statutory provisions.
       Held : A major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition of the respondents family is not one of destitution, the appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 4,57,607/- as terminal benefits (after deducting Rs. 19,183/- towards liabilities); a sum of Rs. 2055/- p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme and in addition the total monthly income of the family comes to Rs. 5855/- (monthly pension of Rs.2055/- + Rs.3800/- p.m. as notional interest on the investment of Rs.4,57,607/-). The competent fact finding authority on the basis of the above financial details had arrived at the conclusion that the financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the respondent. We however, do not feel the necessity to interfere with this order of the Bank Authority on the fact situation of this case.(Para 18)
       The competent authority of the bank had to consider the case of the respondent as per the laid down parameters laid down in the scheme. Accordingly, while deciding on the financial condition of the respondent factors like: a) Family Pension; b) Gratuity; c) Employee’s/Employer’s contribution to the Provident Fund; d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund; e) Proceeds of LIC Policy & other investments of the deceased employee; f) Income for family from other sources; g) Employment of other family members; h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc. were taken into consideration by the Competent Authority and based on these details appointment was declined to the respondent on compassionate ground. (Para 19)
       Also we are of the view that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Both the Benches of the High Court that heard this present matter have erred in entertaining the claim of the respondent and allowing the claim of the respondent.(Para 20)
       The High Court also erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 04.08.2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of deceased is Rs.5855/- only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by Late Shri. Sukhbir Inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. On 07.08.1996, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued guidelines regarding scheme of appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds, which were entirely based on the observations of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138. Subsequently, on 23.08.1996, the Indian Banks Association issued a circular suggesting to all Public Sector Banks, certain amendments to the scheme on compassionate appointment, while taking into account the financial condition of the family, the family pension, gratuity, proceeds of LIC, etc. should be taken into consideration. Based on the guidelines issued by the Government of India and the Indian Banks Association, the appellant Bank framed a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds for dependent of deceased employees. A memorandum of the same was presented before the Central Board of the Bank, which was approved on 16.11.1996.

3. On 01.08.1999, Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts) in the Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar branch, Sri. Sukhbir Inder Singh (late), passed away. The respondent, widow of Sri. Sukhbir Inder Singh applied for compassionate appointment in the appellant Bank on 05.02.2000. On 07.01.2002, the competent authority of the Bank declined the application of the respondent in view of the scheme vis-a-vis the financial position of the family. Against this decision of the authority the respondent filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3077/2002 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

4. The High Court ordered reconsideration of the case of Jaspal Kaur, respondent herein by its order dated 11.12.2003. On 05.03.2004, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank reconsidered the case of the respondent and declined appointment to the respondent on compassionate ground after taking into consideration the financial condition of the family. The Competent Authority thereafter declined the request of the respondent on 03.04.2004. This decision was conveyed to the respondent by the appellants on 05.04.2004.

5. Thereafter, the respondent filed one more Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9629/2004 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for quashing of the order dated 03.04.2004. The appellants filed their reply on 03.05.2005. On 20.09.2005, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and observed that, “...the aforesaid kitty of Rs. 4,57,607/- granted to the family on account of terminal benefits could not be accepted to be sufficient The said amount was naturally in the shape of a security for the marriage of the daughters....In our considered view the aforesaid income is not sufficient for the bare maintenance of the family”.

6. It is against this order and judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, this Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave Petition is preferred by the appellant Bank in this Court.

7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mukul Rohtagi appeared on behalf of the appellant Bank and learned Counsel Mr. P.N. Puri appeared for the respondent.

It was submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent could be considered for compassionate appointment only under the scheme framed by the Bank. Hence the provisions of the scheme viz. compassionate appointment applies only in cases wherein the deceased has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood are required to be taken into consideration. Also the appellant-Bank, as per the Scheme, is required to look at the penurious condition/indigent circumstances existing at the time of death of the sole breadwinner, warranting such compassion. And in any case if there does not exist any such circumstances, a writ of mandamus, cannot be issued, de hors the scheme.

It was submitted that, the High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case the family of the deceased employee consists of widow, twin daughters and one son, and the financial condition of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1

Cases Referred (5)

Login now and unlock premium legal research