Compassionate appointment claims must be evaluated empathetically, ensuring the emotional context is considered in line with the underlying objective of the relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Shukla and Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishwas Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by opposite party no. 2, i.e. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Sitapur, on the ground that without assigning any reason, the order has been passed, declining the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father, Late Keshav Ram Jaiswal, who joined the service in 1982, unfortunately died in the year 2016, i.e. on 04.08.2016, leaving behind the legal heirs, including the present petitioner being the son.

4. He submitted that after the death of the father, the mother submitted an application on 04.08.2018 while making a claim for appointment by mentioning that her son had passed the Intermediate examination and he is pursuing his graduation course, and she desired that her son be appointed after completion of his education.

5. He added that the application may not be happily worded, but one thing is apparent that the son of the deceased employee, who is the legal heir, had passed the Intermediate examination and therefore, he should have been considered for appropriate appointment under the rules prevalent at that point of time in the bank.

6. Further submission is that the impugned order does not speak about any reason for refusal of the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. He has also drawn attention towards paragraphs 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 06.11.2025 filed by the counsel for the respondent bank and submitted that it has been mentioned in the affidavit that the deliberation and discussion among the members of the Board is oral in nature and based on that oral discussion, the petitioner was not found eligible and therefore his appointment has been declined.

7. He further argued that the rules of compassionate appointment are made for considering such legal heirs on the basis of compassion and it is not the intent of any law-making agency to deprive a person whose caretaker and parent has died in harness. He next submitted that the mental status of the family, particularly the wife, after the death of her husband can be understood and therefore, if the application has been filed, not with a targeted request, then that should not be taken otherwise, rather, it is incumbent upon the authorities to try to fulfill the very purpose of the prevalent rules and laws for which those are meant.

8. He added that the application initially was submitted in the year 2018, i.e. very well within the time period prescribed under the provisions. Clarifying the position, he submitted that after the application was instituted on 04.08.2018, a letter was received by the petitioner on 27.08.2018, which is appended as Annexure No. 3 along with the writ petition and in compliance thereof, all the formalities were completed on 04.08.2018, But in the meantime, the office was shifted and therefore, it was requested by the bank officers that a fresh application be given, and thereafter, the fresh application was given on 27.01.2021. This does not mean that the application was initially given in the year 2021, rather, it was given in the year 2018 through the application which was given on 27.01.2021 is also within the time of five years of limitation period prescribed in the Rules. He added that all these reasons were neither considered no