Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Naina Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1019 of 2025
Decided On : 21-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Siddharth Khare
For the Respondent: Ajay Shankar
Compassionate appointments prioritize eligible dependents' needs and must not be obstructed by family disputes, with employers required to ensure equitable resolutions.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointments - Appointment on compassionate grounds is a welfare measure aimed at providing financial relief to the dependents of deceased employees. The process should not be hindered by family disputes. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 32)
(B) Employer's Responsibilities - Employers must ensure legislative intent of grant of appointments is fulfilled, even amidst rival claims, by evaluating financial status and obligations of family members. (Paras 13, 14, 35)
(C) Eligibility Criteria - The petitioner is the most eligible and suitable candidate for compassionate appointment based on her qualifications and financial needs, while the respondent's eligibility is curtailed by age. (Paras 19, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims compassionate appointment following the death of her husband, a bank employee, amidst family disputes with her mother-in-law over the appointment process. The mother-in-law has refused to issue necessary documents, hindering the petitioner’s claim.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the bank to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment without the mother-in-law's letter of relinquishment, requiring the petitioner to give a sworn undertaking to support the mother-in-law financially.
Issues: Whether the appointment may be denied due to the failure of the mother-in-law to relinquish her claim; and if the petitioner is eligible for compassionate grounds despite opposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that family disputes cannot delay legitimate claims to compassionate appointments and that the petitioner’s young age and qualifications make her the best candidate to meet all dependents' needs.
Result: Writ petition is allowed, and the bank is directed to process the petitioner’s appointment accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. essential facts of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. analysis of compassionate grounds appointments and family disputes (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. eligibility and financial status of claimant parties (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. analysis of competing claims and determination of eligibility based on various factors. (Para 29) |
| 6. conclusions and directives issued (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. final conclusions and directions issued by the court. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The judgement is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:
| I | Introduction |
| II | Facts established from the record |
| III | Submissions of learned counsel for the parties |
| IV | Issues arising for consideration |
| V | Appointments on compassionate grounds: rationale and purpose |
| VI | (A) Disputes and competing claims in the process of compassionate ground appointments: General |
| (B) Disputes and competing claims regarding compassionate appointments: Duties of the employer | |
| VII | Analysis of the competing claims: |
| (a) Eligibility of parties for appointment | |
| (b) Financial status of parties | |
| (c) Comparative long term commitments and other support systems of the parties | |
| (d) Benefits to all dependents of deceased | |
| VIII | Validity of stand of the respondent no. 5 against the petitioner and maintenance needs of respondent no. 5 |
| IX | Answers to the issues arising for consideration |
| X | Conclusions & Directions |
I. Introduction
2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.10.2024 issued by the Branch Head, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi, insofar as it mandates the petitioner to furnish various documents including letter of relinquishment duly executed by Ms. Meena Gupta- respondent no. 5, which are required to decide the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner she is entitled to be appointed without production of the said documents.
II. Facts established from the record
3. Kuldeep Gupta was working as a Single Window Operator in UCO Bank, Mahmoorganj Branch, Varanasi. He was married to the petitioner. The couple had one son in the wedlock. Kuldeep Gupta died in harness on 21.01.2024. The deceased is survived by his wife (petitioner) and a son. The mother of the deceased (respondent no.5) was also dependent on him. The petitioner has made a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.
4. Evidently there is no love lost between the two ladies. Infact there is an open discord between them over the appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent no. 5 has declined to issue the letter of relinquishment in favour of the petitioner, and has also refused to execute other relevant documents. The said documents are essential requirements to process the petitioner’s claim and in the absence thereof the appointment of the petitioner has been held up.
III. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties:
5. Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel assisted by Shri Aditendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
I. The petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of her age and educational qualifications. The respondent no. 5 cannot be appointed in view of her age and ineligibility for appointment.
II. The petitioner faces greater financial hardship compared to the respondent no. 5.
III. Denial of appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner on account of opposition of the respondent no. 5 will also visit penal consequences on her minor son.
IV. The petitioner affirms her obligations to maintain respondent no. 5 and undertakes to provide for the respondent no. 5 on terms to be decided by this Court.
6. Shri Utkarsh Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits:
I. The respondent no. 5 is an old lady and was dependent on her son.
II. The petitioner resides separately and is not taking care of respondent no. 5.
II
