Administrative Apathy Unmasked: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Bank Over Compassionate Appointment

In a significant ruling concerning the duty of public authorities, the Rajasthan High Court has quashed a rejection order issued by Allahabad Bank regarding a plea for compassionate appointment. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, presiding over the matter, emphasized that public institutions cannot cite their own systemic delays as a basis to deny support to the families of deceased employees, particularly when the initial application was filed in compliance with existing policies.

The Struggles of a Grieving Family

The petitioner, Vibhor Golash, sought intervention after his application for appointment on compassionate grounds, following the death of his father—a bank manager—was rejected. The saga began in 2015 when the petitioner, then pursuing his graduation, applied for a role in the bank’s clerical cadre.

Despite multiple interactions with bank officials and subsequent applications, the bank maintained an inexplicable silence for years. It was only in July 2020 that the bank finally rejected his request, citing an "inordinate delay" in filing and the subsequent death of his mother, who had been receiving a family pension.

Arguments from the Aisle

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the bank’s internal inconsistencies were the cause of the delay. The petitioner had been advised during personal interactions to graduate before seeking a clerical post; he complied, yet the bank failed to act on his subsequent filings. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the bank’s claims that he had refused a prior offer for a sub-staff position, noting a total lack of documentary evidence to support such an assertion.

The respondent, represented by the bank, contended that the delay was attributable to the petitioner and that the application was no longer tenable following the demise of the family pensioner. They maintained that the bank had acted according to its internal scheme, which had evolved over the duration of the petitioner's ordeal.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain underscored that the bank’s failure to respond to timely, initial applications amounted to an "omission" on their part. Referring to the precedent set in * Jane Kaushik Vs. Union of India (2025)*, the court reiterated that public authorities are duty-bound to discharge their functions in a fair and transparent manner to advance the constitutional mandate of welfare.

The Court pointedly observed that not a single shred of evidence was placed on record to show that a sub-staff position was ever offered to, or refused by, the petitioner.

Key Observations

• On the Duty of Fairness: "The Court is well aware about the fact that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is just a solace to the family of deceased employee, but when a public authority, which was expected to discharge a function in fair and transparent manner... if failed to discharge their duties then the Court has no option except to allow the writ petition."
• On Institutional Failure: "The respondents have not placed any document on record to demonstrate that after personal interaction they have offered post of sub-staff to petitioner and same was not accepted by him."
• On Procedural Propriety: "Prior to 27.07.2020, the petitioner has approached the respondent-Bank for compassionate appointment and the first application was made within the time frame as prescribed by the Bank... Thus, rejection of application for compassionate appointment is contrary to the settled norms."

A Mandatory Re-evaluation

The High Court has quashed the rejection order dated July 27, 2020, and ordered Allahabad Bank to reconsider the petitioner’s application for a suitable post. The court has given the bank 90 days to complete the examination process, effectively placing the responsibility of procedural rectification squarely on the institution’s shoulders.

This decision serves as a stern reminder to public sector employers that compassionate appointment schemes are designed as a "solace" and, when managed with administrative apathy, the judiciary will intervene to ensure justice for the families left behind by civil servants.