Compassionate appointment claims depend on the family's financial condition; income over the threshold can justify rejection.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 01-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs :-

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing letter dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure- 3) and letter dated 18.09.2021 (Annexure- 4) vide which the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment under the Scheme for compassionate Appointment or payment of ex-gratia Financial Relief to dependents of deceased employees has been ejected on the ground that "the financial condition of the family is not indigent". The Respondent Bank while rejecting the claim has ignored its own definition of "indigent condition" as provided in Annexure- 5 & 5A wherein it is defined that the family condition will be considered as indigent, if the monthly income of the family from all the sources is than 60% (in case of petitioner, the family is survived by four dependent members) of last drawn GROSS salary of the deceased.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents for granting benefit for of the Scheme compassionate Appointment or payment of ex-gratia Financial Relief to the Petitioner.

(iii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner be entitled in the facts and is found to circumstances of the case.”

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner who was in bank service of the Bank of Baroda died on 4.8.2019. The petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground which came to be rejected by the respondent-Bank by order dated 30.7.2020. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected on 18.9.2021. The orders impugned are Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ application.

4. Having gone through the materials on record and the submissions made by the parties, it transpires that the application for compassionate appointment is dealt with by the Bank as per the terms of compassionate appointment and ex gratia amount in lieu thereof (Annexure-5 to the writ application).

5. The object of the scheme mentions about grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent family member in case the employee dies leaving his family in penury without any means of livelihood. The order passed in appeal rejecting the application of the petitioner mentions about the monthly income of the family which comes to Rs.53,416/- per month as on 18.9.2021 i.e. the date of passing of the order.

6. In the opinion of the Court, in case of a family having the monthly income as stated in the order in appeal, the Court finds no error in the order passed by the respondent- Bank rejecting the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The Court may also take not of the statement though made in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank that while the mother of the petitioner received a total sum of Rs.58,70,449/-, she is also getting a pension of Rs.71,104/-

(approx) every month.

7. The application so far as challenge to the order of the Bank rejecting the application for compassionate appointment is concerned, the Court finds no merit in the same and as such the application is rejected.

8. So far as payment of ex gratia amount is concerned, on perusal of the scheme brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ application, the Court finds that Clause-5 thereof provides that ex gratia amount may be granted to the family of a employee if the monthly income of the family from all sources is less than 60% of the last drawn salary.

9. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated here that the monthly inco