Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Bank of Baroda and Others – Appellants
Versus
Baljit Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 624 of 2017
Decided On : 21-06-2023
(A) Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – 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 Scheme applicable at relevant point of time that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment – Since appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to general rule for appointment by an open invitation, exception has to be resorted to only when candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate succour on death of employee in harness – Appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right and criteria laid down in Rules and Schemes applicable must be satisfied by all aspirants. (Paras 12 and 13)
(B) Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with prevalent Scheme – Direction by High Court to consider cases for compassionate appointment de hors terms of policy is impermissible as it would amount to re-writing terms of policy – This aspect has been overlooked by High Court in instant case – Eligibility for compassionate appointment must be as per applicable scheme and courts cannot substitute a scheme or add or subtract from terms thereof in exercise of judicial review – Such dicta would also apply to a suit filed seeking relief of compassionate appointment – In present case, total income of family is not less than 60% of total emoluments which deceased was drawing at the time of his death as per Scheme under consideration – Judgment of High Court set aside and suit of respondent dismissed. (Paras 14, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Respondent filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking appointment on compassionate basis which was decreed by the Trial Court and upheld and affirmed by High Court. Vide impugned judgment, High Court has set aside judgment of First Appellate Court dated 16.12.2009 passed in C.A. No.75 of 2008 and has restored judgment of Trial Court passed in Original Suit No.201 of 2005. Consequently, relief sought for by respondent in suit, i.e., declaration and mandatory injunction vis-à-vis his appointment in appellant-Bank on compassionate basis has been granted.
Findings of Court:
High Court was not right in answering the questions of law in favour of respondent and thereby, setting aside judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring judgment of Trial Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. 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 vis-a-vis his appointment in the appellant-Bank on compassionate basis has been granted.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent’s father who was working in the appellant-Bank, died in harness on 16.05.1999. As on that date, the appellant-Bank had a Scheme in place for appointment of dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds which was issued on 18.08.1998.
3. It is the case of the respondent herein that on the death of the respondent’s father in harness, his mother made an application for appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds to the post of Peon under the 1998 Scheme. The said application for compassionate appointment was filed on 21.02.2000. During the pendency of the said application under consideration, the appellant-Bank announced another Scheme for appointment of the dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds on 10.03.2004. Be that as it may, four years subsequent to the death of his father, another representation on behalf of the Respondent was made to the appellant-Bank on 25.03.2004 in order to bring to the notice of the Bank the fact that he had completed his matriculation in March 2004. Subsequently, the Bank considered the application of the respondent and on 08.06.2004 rejected the same. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed the Original Suit seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction against the Bank. In the said suit, the appellant-Bank filed its written statement and after trial, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit and directed that the respondent be appointed on compassionate grounds.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2008, the appellant-Bank filed an appeal before the Court of the Additional District Judge, which by its judgment dated 16.12.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the Trial Court. The respondent, thereafter, filed a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana assailing the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The High Court, while considering the Second Appeal formulated two questions of law but while answering the same in substance, considered the questions of law together and by the impugned judgment dated 11.12.2015 set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal by the appellant-Bank before this Court.
5. We have heard Ms. Praveena Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank and Mr. Himanshu Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material placed on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant made a two-fold submission while assailing the judgment of the High Court. In the first instance, she submitted that the High Court was not right in answering the second question of law in favour of the respondent without appreciating the factual aspects of the matter. Elaborating the said contention, she drew our attention to various clauses of the Scheme dated 18.08.1998 which had been issued by the Bank by way of a Circular, to contend that the respondent did not fulfill the criterion regarding financial status of a candidate, within clause (c) of “Important points”, which gives the formula to be applied in order to consider the case of a candidate for appointment on compassionate basis. In this regard, she drew our attention to the application made by the respondent disclosing the income of his deceased father as well as the income of the family. She submitted that hav
Compassionate Appointment – Appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right and criteria laid down in Rules and Schemes applicable must be satisfied by all aspirants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a compassionate appointment request must be based on valid and reasoned grounds, considering the financial distress of the pe....
The policy for compassionate appointment must evaluate criteria based on circumstances at the time of the employee's death, not subsequent income limits.
Compassionate appointment requires assessment of financial distress; mere receipt of terminal benefits does not negate eligibility for such appointment.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession for immediate financial distress following a government employee's death, and cannot be claimed after significant delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scheme prevalent at the time of the death of the employee shall be the basis for considering the application for compassionate appointment....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
