* THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN + WRIT APPEAL No.570 of 2025 % Dated:23.04.2026 # Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank), and two others.

…Appellants vs.

$ Ms. Boda Deepthi Naik …Respondent ! Counsel for the appellants: Mr. Alluri Krishnam Raju ^ Counsel for respondent : Ms. C.Jyotsna Devi, representing learned counsel Mr. V.Ravichandran Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred

1. Civil Appeal No.7752 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021

2. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745 3. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 4. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290

5. (2020) 7 SCC 617

6. (2020) 10 SCC 496

7. (1994) 5 SCC 450

8. (2010) 11 SCC 661 9. (2014) 13 SCC 583

10. (2015) 7 SCC 412 11. (2019) 5 SCC 600 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.570 of 2025 Dated:23.04.2026 Between:

Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank), rep. by its Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Personnel Department (Officers Wing), Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka – 576104 and two others.

…Appellants and Ms.Boda Deepthi Naik, D/o Late Boda Sudhakar, Aged about 29 years, Unemployed R/o H.No.7-2-11, Plot No.4, Sri Laxmi Ganesh Nagar Colony, Bairamalguda, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad – 79.

…Respondent 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