Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 27598
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Sarita Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
WPS No. 2019 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arvind Shrivastava, Syed Jayed Ziya Ali
For the Respondents: P.R. Patankar, Swapnil Thawani
Compassionate appointment is governed by the specific terms of the employer's policy; if the applicant does not meet the eligibility criteria and the policy itself is not challenged, the court will not interfere with the administrative decision to reject the application.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Adherence to Policy - Where the scheme for compassionate appointment prescribes specific conditions for applicability, such as death due to violence, terrorism, or within a specific timeframe/age, the authorities are bound to decide applications strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy. (Para 9)
(B) Administrative Discretion - Judicial Review - In the absence of a challenge to the validity of the eligibility clause in the policy, the court will not interfere with the administrative decision to reject an application if the candidate does not meet the prescribed criteria. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite not meeting the specific eligibility criteria laid down in Clause 5 of the respondent's scheme.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and set-aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 issued by the Respondent no. 3.
10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondent no. 3 to issue the appointment order to the petitioner under the scheme of compassionate appointment for the death of her father during course of employment.
10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. Facts in brief are that father of the petitioner was working on the post of Messenger under the respondents. He died in harness on 13.06.2013. Mother of the petitioner moved an application to provide compassionate appointment to her daughter Ku. Sarita Yadav/petitioner on 14.10.2013. A reminder letter was sent on 12.11.2020. The respondent No. 3 rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 14.12.2020 assigning reason that claim of compassionate appointment according to policy can be considered if an employee dies while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or when employee dies within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, which ever is later.
3. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Senior Advocate would contend that the reason assigned by the respondent authorities vide order dated 14.12.2020 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India. He would contend that object of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the members of deceased employee. He would contend that the rejection of application on extraneous grounds requires interference by this Court. It is also argued by Mr. Shrivastava, Senior Advocate that the petitioner or her mother never accepted compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and document, which has been placed along with the return filed by the respondent authorities is dubious. He would argue that if the petitioner was not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to make payment of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in lieu of compassionate appointment. He would submit that the order dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure P/6) may be quashed and petition may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate appearing for respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. Mr. Patankar would contend that the policy for grant of compassionate appointment dated 13.05.2011 was in existence at the time of death of father of the petitioner. He wold refer clause -5 of scheme, which deal with applicability. He would contend that according to scheme, claim of compassionate appointment would be applicable if an employee dies while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or employee died within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years. He would contend that father of the petitioner died on 13.06.2013 and his death was not a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and he died at around age of 56 years, and therefore, his application was rightly rejected by the authorities concerned. It is also contended by Mr. Patankar that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given to mother of the petitioner in lieu of compassionate appointment and an agreement was entered into in this regard on 16.09.2013. He would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
6. Father of the petitioner died on 13.06.2013, thereafter, mother of the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on behalf of her daughter. Said application was rejected by
