Compassionate appointment requires assessment of financial distress; mere receipt of terminal benefits does not negate eligibility for such appointment.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. Canara Bank¹[appellant] is in appeal, by special leave, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th November, 2019²[impugned order] of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam³[High Court] dismissing an intra-court appeal that it had carried from the judgment and order dated 9th June, 2016 of a Single Bench allowing the writ petition of Ajithkumar G.K..⁴[respondent].

RESUME OF FACTS

2. The facts leading to this appeal are not disputed. However, a brief resume is considered necessary to decide the appeal.

a. Father of the respondent passed away on 20th December, 2001 while in service of the appellant. He had 4 (four) months service left prior to superannuation.

b. A scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, formulated by the appellant and contained in Circular No. 154/93 dated 8th May, 1993⁵[scheme of 1993], was in force when such death occurred. Within a month of his father’s death, the respondent applied on 15th January, 2002 seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

c. On 30th October, 2002, the respondent’s plea was spurned by the Deputy General Manager of the appellant. The reason assigned were twofold: (i) mother of the respondent is in receipt of family pension of Rs. 4367.92p and hence the financial position of the family does not warrant an appointment on compassionate ground; and (ii) the respondent was overaged for the post of “Prob. Peon”.

d. Incidentally, the respondent was in excess of 26 (twenty-six) years of age and in terms of the scheme of 1993, the maximum age limit for appointment on a clerical post as well as in the sub-staff category was 26 (twenty-six) years. The scheme, however, provided for relaxation of the upper age limit up to a maximum limit of five years. For members of the scheduled caste community, ex-servicemen and physically disabled candidates, special relaxation was also provided. The respondent, though over-aged by a few months, was not considered by the appellant for such relaxation.

e. Nevertheless, the respondent on 7th January, 2003, prayed for reconsideration of his prayer.

f. The Assistant General Manager of the appellant conveyed to the respondent on 20th January, 2003 that the financial position of the family of the deceased employee had previously been examined in depth by the competent authority and there being no fresh ground for reconsideration, he regretted inability to reconsider the prayer.

g. This was followed by a request dated 4th February, 2003 of the respondent’s mother seeking reconsideration of the application submitted by the respondent for protecting the poor family of the deceased employee who had served the appellant for more than 24 (twenty-four) years.

h. By an order dated 18th February, 2003, the Divisional Manager of the appellant once again expressed inability to reconsider the application of the respondent’s mother.

i. The respondent, finding no other option, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerela by presenting a petition⁶[ W.P. (C) No. 38363/2003 (P)] under Article 226 of the Constitution.

j. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant issued Circular No. 35/2005 dated 14th February, 2005⁷[scheme of 2005] introducing the “SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF LUMPSUM EX-GRATIA AMOUNT IN LIEU OF EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS”. The said scheme laid down provisions for coverage of family members of deceased employees who would be entitled to lump sum ex-gratia payment. Most importantly, the circular dated 14th February, 2005 discontinued the policy of compassionate appointment under the scheme of 1993.

k. As is the case with high courts all over the country having immense burden of work but number of Judges fewer than the sanctioned strength, and for reasons beyond its control, it took the High Court more than a decade to decide the writ petition.

l. Vide a judgment and ord