Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) vs Boda Deepthi Naik, D/o Late Boda Sudhakar

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 278

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ, G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J.
Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) - Appellants
Versus
Ms.Boda Deepthi Naik, D/o Late Boda Sudhakar - Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.570 of 2025
Decided On : 23-04-2026

Important Points

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. Eligibility is governed by the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application; specifically, if a subsequent policy is applied retrospectively, that retrospective policy overrides previous schemes regardless of the employee's date of death.

Subject

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142

Headnote

(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Applicability of modified schemes - Determination of eligibility based on either the date of death of the employee or the date of consideration of the application - Appointment on compassionate grounds is not an automatic vested right but is subject to strict scrutiny of parameters including the financial position of the family. Norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should generally be the basis for determining the claim. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

(B) Retrospective Application of Policy - If a subsequent policy for compassionate appointment is made applicable retrospectively, the case must be guided by such retrospective scheme, regardless of the date of the employee's demise or the date the application was submitted. (Paras 7, 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The daughter of a deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment following her father's death. During the pendency of the application, a new scheme was introduced which prescribed a ceiling on the total monthly family income to determine eligibility. This new scheme was made effective retrospectively from a date prior to the employee's death. The application was rejected on the grounds that the family's monthly income exceeded the ceiling limit set by the new retrospective scheme. The writ court had previously ruled that the scheme prevalent at the time of death should be the determining factor.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower court's reliance on the date of death as the sole fixed criterion was incorrect in light of precedents from larger benches. Since the new scheme was explicitly made effective retrospectively from a date preceding the death of the employee, the eligibility criteria of the new scheme apply to the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the application for compassionate appointment should be considered under the old scheme prevalent at the time of death or under the new scheme which was made applicable retrospectively.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that because compassionate appointment does not create a vested right, the norms prevailing on the date of consideration are the governing factor. Moreover, where a subsequent policy is applied retrospectively, it overrides previous schemes. Therefore, the retrospective income ceiling is applicable and valid for rejecting the claim. (Paras 10, 11, 13)

Result: Writ appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Alluri Krishnam Raju
For the Respondent: Ms. C.Jyotsna Devi, representing learned counsel Mr. V.Ravichandran

JUDGMENT :

Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ.

Mr. Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the appellants. Ms. C.Jyotsna Devi, learned counsel appears for Mr.V.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. The appellants/Bank is in appeal against the impugned judgment, whereby the learned writ court held that the petitioner be entitled for consideration as per Circular dated 08.04.2015, i.e., the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of the employee dying in harness and retiring on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years or payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment.

3. In order to appreciate the issue at hand, relevant facts are being narrated hereinafter. The petitioner’s father while working as Senior Manager, M.J.Road, Currency Chest, Hyderabad, in the appellant Bank died on 15.04.2017. He is survived by the petitioner/daughter, wife and son and 92 year old mother. Family pension was sanctioned on 03.07.2017. Application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 12.07.2017 by the petitioner. While the application remain pending, the scheme of compassionate appointment dated 08.04.2015 was replaced by the new scheme vide circular dated 31.01.2018, which was made effective from 05.08.2014. It prescribed a ceiling of total income of the family Rs.35,000/- per month to decide the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment. The rejection order, dated 23.03.2018 computed the total monthly income of the family as Rs.43,333/- which was more than the ceiling of Rs.35,000/- per month. The writ petitioner assailed the rejection order before the learned writ court and also sought a writ of mandamus declaring her entitlement for being appointed on compassionate grounds in clerical cadre consequent to the demise of her father in harness on 15.04.2017.

4. The appellants Bank filed its counter affidavit. A detailed calculation of the monthly income of the petitioner’s family from all sources was furnished. The Bank took a plea that since the new scheme was made effective from 05.08.2014, the case of the petitioner would be covered by the new scheme irrespective of the date of death or application for compassionate appointment made.

5. The learned writ court after considering the rival submissions of the parties and relying on the decision of the apex court in the Secretary to Government, Department of Education (Primary) vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa, Civil Appeal No.7752 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021, held that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor. Therefore, it was held that the scheme prevalent at the time of death of employees has to be taken as factor to determine the eligibility of the petitioner. The learned writ court also distinguished the decisions rendered in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. Baljit Singh , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745 and the State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 relied upon by the appellant Bank. The learned writ court also observed that the computation of monthly income was made on hypothetical assumptions. The stipulation of family income of Rs.35,000/- per month was not there in the old scheme. The appellants Bank being aggrieved has preferred this appeal.

6. From the pleadings on record and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the main issue required to be answered is whether the case of petitioner is to be considered under the old scheme dated 08.04.2015 or under the new scheme dated 31.01.2018, which was made effective from 05.08.2014.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants Bank has referred to the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290, wherein the apex court has examined the number of precedents on this issue. He submits that as on date, since the three-Judge Bench of the apex court in