The definition of 'indigent' for compassionate appointments should reflect financial distress rather than strict poverty thresholds, emphasizing context over mechanical criteria.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents in denying compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee, alleging violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders dated 01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2 suffer from arbitrariness and are contrary to the principles of natural justice, fair play and equity.

2. That the father of the petitioner, Shri Darshan Singh, was serving as an Assistant Manager in the respondent bank and expired on 17.01.2020 during service due to ailment, as evidenced by the identity card, certificate issued by Jan Seva Hospital dated 22.02.2019, and death certificate dated 26.01.2019 (Annexure-1); that since the deceased employee was the sole earning member and the petitioner’s entire family was dependent on his income, the petitioner, who possesses a B.A. degree, submitted an application in the prescribed proforma for compassionate appointment along with requisite documents (Annexure-4); that respondent No.2, vide communication dated 01.10.2019, informed that the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was considered but not acceded to by the competent authority on the ground that the family was not found to be in indigent or penurious condition and further stated that the legal heirs of the deceased were not eligible for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment (Annexure-5); that it is also on record that the respondent bank recovered from the gratuity dues of the deceased an amount of Rs. 6,99,921.26 towards OD Limit, Rs. 1,27,846/- and Rs. 24,265/- towards vehicle loans, and Rs. 6,253/- towards festival loan, as reflected in the family pension document (Annexure-6); that thereafter, the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, submitted a representation dated 03.10.2019 before respondent No.2 asserting that the aforesaid recoveries had been made from the gratuity dues, and further stating that the family had also taken personal loans of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Bajaj Finance, Rs. 2,50,000/- from Muthoot Finance, and Rs. 7–8 lakhs from the market for the treatment of the deceased employee, and after clearing all dues, nothing remained with them, and that they neither owned a house nor had any source of livelihood except the unemployed petitioner, therefore seeking reconsideration of the request for compassionate appointment (Annexure-7); that respondent No.2, however, vide communication dated 07.03.2020, reiterated that the competent authority did not find the family to be in indigent or penurious condition and thus did not accept the request (Annexure-8); and that being aggrieved by the communications dated 01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the same.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 has committed a grave error apparent on the face of record by rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment vide orders dated 01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020. It is urged that despite the deceased employee Shri Darshan Singh being the sole earning member, the respondents wrongly concluded that the family was not in indigent circumstances. The retiral benefits cited by the respondents cannot justify rejection, as substantial amounts were deducted towards various bank loans, personal loans and medical expenses,