Bank's 'Bad Record' Excuse Crumbles: MP High Court Orders Fresh Look at Son's Job Plea

In a scathing rebuke to Union Bank of India, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has ruled that an alleged "unsatisfactory service record" of a deceased employee cannot be wielded to deny compassionate appointment to his dependent family. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai allowed writ petition No. 794/2019 filed by Nikhil Kol, quashing the bank's 2018 rejection order and directing a policy-compliant reconsideration—complete with a Rs 50,000 cost slapped on the bank for its "apathetic approach."

This decision, echoing sentiments in legal news headlines like "Alleged Unsatisfactory Record Of Deceased Employee Cannot Be Used To Deny Son's Compassionate Appointment Claim: MP High Court" , underscores the welfare essence of such schemes amid a family's plunge into poverty.

Sudden Loss, Desperate Plea: The Kol Family's Ordeal

Nikhil Kol, a 20-year-old Scheduled Tribe youth from Jabalpur who had cleared Class IX, became the sole hope for his family after his father, Shankar Prasad Kol—a 22-year veteran 'Daftary' at the bank's Sagra branch in Rewa—died of a heart attack on August 7, 2016. His mother had passed away in 2012, leaving Nikhil to shoulder responsibilities for his wife, one-year-old son, and three unmarried sisters (aged 18, 16, and 14) pursuing education.

The family, entirely dependent on the father's salary, spiraled into "utter destitution." Nikhil promptly applied under the bank's compassionate scheme (effective retrospectively from August 5, 2014, introduced January 19, 2015). The branch recommended it in January 2017, but after 28 months of delays and assurances, the bank rejected it on January 30, 2018, citing the father's "unsatisfactory service record"—a ground absent from the policy.

Petitioner's Cry: 'Extraneous Rejection Defeats Scheme's Purpose'

Nikhil argued the rejection was arbitrary, non-speaking, and imported an "alien" criterion not in the scheme. No major penalties marred his father's "clean" 22-year service. He invoked prior MP HC rulings like Rinku Razak vs State Bank of India (WP 14428/2014), where similar bank actions were overturned. Emphasizing immediacy—his application was filed soon after death—he highlighted the family's hand-to-mouth existence, urging quashing via certiorari and mandamus for retrospective Peon/Messenger posting with benefits.

Silent Bank, Ex-Parte Fury

Despite notice served in February 2019, Union Bank skipped court, filing no reply. Justice Pillai proceeded ex-parte, lambasting the bank's "glaringly apathetic approach" and 28-month delay as reflective of "non-application of mind."

Judicial Scalpel: Precedents Slice Through Bank's Defense

Drawing from Supreme Court lore in State of West Bengal vs Debabrata Tiwari (Civil Appeals 8842-8855/2022), the court distilled principles: Compassionate appointments are exceptions to recruitment rules, meant for immediate relief from sudden financial crisis—not vested rights or regular hiring. Citing classics like Sushma Gosain vs Union of India (1989) for no-delay mandates, Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana (1994) for crisis-tiding only, and Haryana SEB vs Hakim Singh (1997) against post-crisis claims, it stressed holistic family assessments (income, liabilities, benefits).

The rejection order? "Meticulous scrutiny" revealed no policy clause barring on service records. Calling it "mechanical and apathetic," the court deprecated such "wholly extraneous" tactics, warning against bypassing scheme text.

Key Observations

"A meticulous scrutiny of the aforementioned rejection order clearly reveals that it does not contain or cite any specific clause of the applicable policy which mandates that an 'unsatisfactory service record' can be a valid ground for rejection."

"This Court is utterly surprised as to how the alleged unsatisfactory service record of the petitioner's father can suddenly be weaponized as a ground for the outright rejection of a compassionate appointment claim."

"Dependents applying under such benevolent schemes are already battling severe penury and sudden financial destitution subjecting them to mechanical, cryptic, or arbitrary rejections based on extraneous grounds not explicitly mentioned in the scheme cruelly defeats the very objective of the welfare measure."

Victory with Strings: Reconsider, But Prospective

The writ stands allowed. The bank must revisit Nikhil's claim "strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy," sans the quashed ground, issuing a reasoned order within 60 days of this April 24, 2026, verdict. If eligible, appointment is prospective —no back benefits. The Rs 50,000 cost via demand draft compensates prolonged agony since 2016.

A stern caution to banks: Stick to policy, deliver speaking orders, or face "profound judicial displeasure." This ruling fortifies compassionate schemes as lifelines, not lotteries, potentially curbing bureaucratic stonewalling in public sector banks and amplifying judicial oversight on welfare denials.