Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Bank for 'Arithmetic' Approach to Compassion, Orders Reconsideration of Appointment

JODHPUR: In a significant ruling on service law, the Rajasthan High Court has set aside the decision of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) to deny compassionate appointment to the son of a deceased employee. Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the single-judge bench, held that the term "indigent" cannot be interpreted in a hyper-technical or literal sense that equates to absolute poverty, and that a mechanical reliance on the quantum of terminal benefits without considering the family's liabilities defeats the humanitarian objective of such schemes.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Harjeet Singh, approached the High Court after the OBC rejected his application for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, Shri Darshan Singh, who served as an Assistant Manager. The petitioner argued that his father was the sole breadwinner and his demise left the family in severe financial distress.

The bank, however, rejected the application twice, through communications dated 01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020, on the grounds that the family was not found to be in an "indigent or penurious condition."

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Stance: Counsel for the petitioner contended that the bank's assessment was flawed and arbitrary. It was argued that while the family received terminal benefits, a substantial portion was immediately recovered by the bank towards outstanding loans (overdraft, vehicle, etc.). Furthermore, the family had incurred significant personal debts for the deceased's prolonged medical treatment. With no owned property and the petitioner being unemployed, the family was left with no means of subsistence, making the bank's rejection a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

• Respondent Bank's Defence: The bank maintained that its decision was in strict accordance with its 2014 Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds. It argued that the family had received terminal benefits amounting to approximately ₹34.66 lakhs and was also receiving a family pension. A competent committee, after considering all factors, concluded that the family was not in a state of financial destitution that would warrant a compassionate appointment, which is not a vested right.

Court's Scrutiny: 'Indigence' is Not Pauperism

Justice Farjand Ali's judgment delved deep into the interpretation of the word "indigent," which formed the bedrock of the bank's rejection. The court firmly rejected the notion of applying a rigid, technical definition, such as the one found in the Code of Civil Procedure for waiving court fees.

The court observed that such a restrictive interpretation would render the entire scheme for compassionate appointment an "illusory promise."

> "If such an interpretation is adopted, compassionate appointment would stand reduced to an illusory promise, creating a dichotomy wherein the Scheme ostensibly aims to provide immediate relief, yet imposes a threshold that no eligible family can practically meet. This dual standard renders the very object of compassionate appointment redundant."

The court highlighted that the bank's own scheme (Rule 10) allows for appointment even if another family member is earning, which logically negates the requirement of proving absolute poverty.

Compassion Cannot Be Reduced to Arithmetic

The High Court strongly criticized the bank's mechanical approach of citing the gross amount of terminal benefits while ignoring the context of the family's financial situation.

> "The respondents’ reliance on the quantum of terminal dues, bereft of context, is misplaced... The mechanical conclusion that the family 'is not indigent', without a holistic appreciation of liabilities, household expenses, medical debt and lack of sustained income, reflects a non-application of mind and is inconsistent with the humanitarian objective of compassionate appointment."

In a pivotal observation, the court stated, "Moreover, compassion cannot be reduced to an exercise in arithmetic." It emphasized that the real test is not whether the family has become destitute, but whether it faces immediate hardship due to the sudden cessation of the breadwinner's income.

Final Verdict and Directions

Finding the bank's rejection orders to be based on an erroneous premise and a flawed standard, the High Court allowed the writ petition.

• The impugned orders dated 01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020 were quashed and set aside.
• The matter was remanded back to the bank's competent authority for fresh consideration.
• The court directed the authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order within four weeks, taking into account the family's financial liabilities, medical expenses, and the true spirit of the compassionate appointment scheme.