IMPORTANT POINTS
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right. However, applications for compassionate appointment should not be kept pending for long.
Claim of compassionate appointment has to be decided as per rules prevailing at relevant time.
Executive instruction cannot have retrospective effect.
Delay caused by bank. bank cannot deny respondent’s claim as being stale.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Compassionate appointment – Carves an exception to requirement of compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in matter of recruitment – Evolved to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family – Financial condition of the family an important factor – Cannot be claimed as matter of right – However, applications for compassionate appointment should not be kept pending for long. (Para 7, 8)
       (1994) 4 SCC 138; (2008) 15 SCC 560; (1989) 4 SCC 468; (2014) 13 SCC 583; (2003) 7 SCC 511; (2000) 7 SCC 192 – Relied upon
       2011 (4) SCALE 298; (1994) 4 SCC 448; (2010) 11 SCC 661 – Referred
       (b) Banking law – Compassionate appointment – Canara Bank ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 – Respondent’s father dying on 10.10.1998 in harness – Respondent applying timely for compassionate appointment – Covered by ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ – Appellant Bank rejecting respondent’s claim on 30.06.1999 on ground of no indigent circumstances – Appellant-bank, on 7.11.2001, seeking particulars in connection with the issue of respondent’s employment – Respondent’s case had to be decided under ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ – Bank could not invoke scheme of 2005 to deny respondent’s claim. (Para 9, 10, 13)
       (2007) 9 SCC 571; (2011) 4 SCC 209 – Relied upon
       (c) Banking law – Compassionate appointment – Canara Bank ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 – Replaced by Scheme for ex-gratia – H.O. Circular No.35/2005 dated 14.02.2005 – Circular of 2005 being executive instruction cannot have retrospective effect – Could not be invoked in case of 1999. (Para 13)
       (d) Banking law – Compassionate appointment – Canara Bank ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 – Replaced by Scheme for ex-gratia – H.O. Circular No.35/2005 dated 14.02.2005 – Superseded by scheme 2014 reviving compassionate appointment scheme –Respondent’s application for compassionate appointment in 1999 – Appellant bank’s contention of lapse of time – Not acceptable in view of timely application by respondent and revival of compassionate appointment scheme. (Para 14)
       (e) Banking law – Compassionate appointment – Canara Bank ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 – Bank denying compassionate appointment on ground of family pension and terminal benefits paid to the family – Family pension and terminal benefit is of no consequence. (Para 15)
       (2000) 6 SCC 493; (2008) 15 SCC 560 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       Common question of law falling for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the dependant family members of the deceased employee of the appellant-Canara Bank were entitled to seek compassionate appointment on the basis of ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ which was passed Vide Circular No.154/1993 w.e.f. 8.05.1993.
       The claim is resisted by the Canara Bank on the ground that the financial condition of the family members of the deceased employees is good and that the Scheme dated 8.05.1993 has been replaced with scheme dated 14.02.2005 (H. O. Circular No.35/2005) scrapping the provision of compassionate appointment and in lieu thereof introduced the new scheme of ex-gratia payment.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment does not warrant interference.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Common question of law falling for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the dependant family members of the deceased employee of the appellant-Canara Bank were entitled to seek compassionate appointment on the basis of ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ which was passed Vide Circular No.154/1993 w.e.f. 8.05.1993. The claim is resisted by the Canara Bank on the ground that the financial condition of the family members of the deceased employees is good and that the Scheme dated 8.05.1993 has been replaced with scheme dated 14.02.2005 (H. O. Circular No.35/2005) scrapping the provision of compassionate appointment and in lieu thereof introduced the new scheme of ex-gratia payment.

2. In Civil Appeal No.260/2008, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide its Order dated 24.08.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 1313/2003 (B) titled as Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar directed the bank to reconsider the claim of the claimant-M. Mahesh Kumar within two months from the date of order. Further, due to the pendency of SLP against the decision dated 24.08.2006 in Writ Appeal No.1313/2003(B), the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala also disposed off the Writ Appeal Nos.2333/2006 and 2335/2006 vide common order dated 11.12.2006 and directed the claimants to approach this Court. Assailing the aforesaid three decisions of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the appellant-bank has filed the instant appeals.

3. For convenience, Civil Appeal No.260/2008 is taken as a lead case. Brief facts which led to the filing of the appeal are as follows:-Respondent applied to the appellant-bank on 30.11.1998 claiming to be considered for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, a clerk in the appellant-bank who while on duty died on 10.10.1998. Respondent had applied for the compassionate appointment on account of ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ with effect from 8.05.1993 then in vogue in the appellant-bank. The bank vide its communication dated 30.06.1999 rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the respondent’s family financial position does not show any indigent circumstances warranting to provide employment on compassionate ground. The respondent gave his representation to the General Manager of the appellant-bank and several other representations for reconsideration of his claim; but nothing fruitful happened in consideration of respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, respondent filed O.P. No.21630/2002 (Y) before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam seeking to quash the Ext.P4 and direction to the appellant-bank to appoint him as per ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ then in force in the appellant-bank. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2003 allowed the Original Petition of the respondent herein and quashed Ext.P4 and directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for appointment in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. Appellant-bank assailed the decision of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.1313/2003 (B) and the Division Bench upholding the order of the Single Judge dismissed the writ appeal. The appellant-bank has filed this appeal assailing the correctness of the above order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank contended that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent. It was submitted that ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ is a non-statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant/respondent to be enforced through a writ of mandamus. It was further submitted that the compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succour to the deceased-emplo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 422

Cases Referred (12)