IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Archana Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12924 of 2023
Decided On : 15-04-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Writ Petition - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - The court analyzed the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointments, emphasizing the need for financial destitution and the relevance of terminal benefits received by the family in determining the applicant's need.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after her father's death while employed at the Union Bank of India. The application was rejected on grounds that the family was not in financial destitution, despite the petitioner being a dependent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Committee's decision to deny compassionate appointment was based on a thorough assessment of the family's financial situation, including terminal benefits received, and was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the family's financial situation and the terminal benefits received after the father's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointment is not a right but a discretionary relief based on the immediate financial needs of the family, which must be assessed considering all sources of income and benefits received.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 13.12.2022 issued by the Assistant General Manager (EBD), HR Department, Union Bank of India, Mumbai, communicating the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on account of her father's death in harness. Also under challenge is an order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Committee for Compassionate Appointments of the Bank, by which the petitioner's claim has been rejected.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition, shorn of unnecessary detail, are these:
Ram Prasad Singh was a Clerk, employed with the Union Bank of India, posted at the Gorakhpur Branch. He died in harness on 5th of November, 2021. He was appointed in the year 1990 and at the time of his demise was aged 53 years. The petitioner's father left behind him, his widow Smt. Sangeeta Singh, Km. Archana Singh, the petitioner, his daughter and two married daughters, to wit, Aparna Singh and Sweta Singh. At the time of her father's demise, the petitioner and her mother were dependent upon him. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was a graduate, who had earned her degree from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur and eligible for appointment on compassionate basis. She made an application to the Bank on 29th August, 2022, seeking for herself a consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The two elder sisters of the petitioner have given their 'no objection' to a consideration of the petitioner's candidature. The petitioner belongs to the OBC Category and applied to the Bank, as already said, alongwith necessary certificates, including an income certificate issued by the competent Authority and a letter of undertaking/self-declaration, as required by the Bank's guidelines in this behalf. There are other details, which the petitioner has pleaded, but those we do not think are necessary to mention. Suffice it to say that by a communication dated 13.12.2022 issued by the Assistant General Manager (EBD), Central Officer, Mumbai, the petitioner was informed that her case was placed before the competent Authority and in terms of the Government of India guidelines, besides the scheme for compassionate appointment, her request for compassionate appointment had been considered favourably by the Bank in terms of the scheme, but rejected, as the family is not living in financial destitution, penury or without means of livelihood, justifying the appointment.
3. When this writ petition came up for admission before this Court, we noticed that the order impugned is only a communication of the Committee's decision and not the decision itself. This was not appreciated by the Court and Mr. Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, was required to place through an affidavit, within a week, a copy of the order passed by the functionary, described as the competent Authority, rejecting the petitioner's claim.
4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to wit, the Bank, annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Committee for Compassionate Appointment, which is in the nature of a recommendation. It is a decision accompanied by all other relevant information that the Committee considered. The Committee comprised three members, which includes the Assistant General Manager (Law), another Assistant General Manager, besides the General Manager (Human Resource). The said affidavit being filed, the petitioner was granted time to file an amendment, challenging the Committee's decision dated 14.11.2022. In the meantime, a rejoinder-affidavit was filed on 28.8.2023.
5. An application for amendment was made on 18.9.2023, which was granted by this Court on 9.10.2023. The respondent Bank was granted opportunity to file a further counter-affidavit to the amended pleas. No such affidavit was filed on behalf of the Bank. On 16.10.2023, affidavits being exchanged, the writ petition was admitted t
State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Shashi Kumar
A.P. SRTC v. Sarvarunnisa Begum
Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja
Compassionate appointment is a discretionary relief based on the immediate financial needs of the family, requiring a thorough assessment of all income sources and benefits received.
The eligibility for compassionate appointment requires that the total family income must be less than 60% of the deceased’s last drawn salary, excluding independent family members' incomes.
The compassionate appointment policy requires fair assessment of family income post-death without arbitrary inclusion of unrelated income, especially in urgent financial situations.
Compassionate appointment is not a right but a measure to assist families in financial distress, and is contingent on family employment status and compliance with rules.
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must consider the financial condition of the deceased employee's family, which was not in distress in this case.
Family pension is a relevant factor in determining financial hardship for compassionate appointment under the West Bengal Central Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions under the relevant scheme for compassionate appointment are mandatory in nature, and the subsequent declaration of Govind Praka....
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
The denial of compassionate appointment based solely on marital status is arbitrary, violating equal treatment principles under Article 14.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.