Without assessing the financial condition of the deceased employee’s family, the purpose of a compassionate appointment may be undermined. Such appointments cannot be treated as a heritable right.
Learn how Legalspace helps lawyers streamline clause generation, organise legal documents, and draft complex legal materials more efficiently.
In a civil appeal against the Kerala High Court’s decision dismissing an intra-court appeal preferred by the Canara Bank and upholding the Single Judge’s decision for appointment under the scheme of 1993 in the sub-staff cadre within two months, the Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decisions. However, in the interest of justice, the Court directed for payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the respondent.
Case Background
The father of the respondent passed away on 20-12-2001 while in service of the appellant- Canara Bank (‘Bank’). He had four months of service left before superannuation. A scheme of 1993 for appointment on compassionate grounds formulated by the Bank was in force when the respondent’s father passed away. Within a month of his father’s death, the respondent applied for an appointment on compassionate grounds.
The respondent’s plea was rejected by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank on grounds that the respondent’s mother received a family pension of Rs. 4367 and hence the financial position of the family did not warrant an appointment on compassionate grounds, and the respondent was overaged for the post of ‘Prob. Peon’. As per the scheme of 1993, the maximum age limit for appointment to a clerical post as well as in the sub-staff category was 26 (twenty-six) years. The scheme, however, provided for the relaxation of the upper age limit up to a maximum limit of five years. The respondent’s case was that, though over-aged by a few months, the same was not considered by the Bank for such relaxation.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Bank issued Circular No. 35/2005 dated 14-02-2005 (Scheme of 2005) introducing the “Scheme for payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount in lieu of employment on compassionate grounds.” This scheme discontinued the compassionate appointment under the scheme of 1993.
The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the respondent’s petition. The order passed by the Deputy General Manager refusing the respondent's appointment on compassionate grounds was held to be not in accordance with the scheme of 1993. In furtherance of the said judgment and order, the Bank re-examined the claim for compassionate appointment and once again declined the claim.
The respondent approached the High Court again. The High Court allowed the appeal and directed for appointment under the scheme of 1993 in the sub-staff cadre within two months. It was also directed that the Bank shall, in addition, pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent as compensation for the reluctance shown in giving a compassionate appointment in time.
In the intra-court appeal by the Bank, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal with an exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lakhs, in addition to the compensation directed to be paid by the Single Judge.
The Court also identified that the question as to which rule/policy/scheme would be applicable for consideration of an application for compassionate appointment, i.e., the rule/policy/scheme prevailing on the date of death, or the date of consideration of the application has been a grey area for long and divergent views have been taken by the coordinate benches of the Court.
The Court referred to a trajectory of authorities wherein the Court has discussed this question. In Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 44, it was held that since the appellant had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds at a point time when the 2003 Rules were not in existence, therefore, his case was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001.
In Canara Bank v. M Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 it was held that a claim for compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim.
The Court pointed out that N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, does seem to have impliedly overruled Canara Bank (supra) by holding that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration and not the norms as applicable on the date of death.
The Court also noted that after N.C. Santosh (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas (2020) 10 SCC 496 was pronounced holding that compassionate appointment has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.
The Court perused the Scheme of 1993 and noted the age norms to be as follows:
In the case of a widow/widower
In the case of others
The Court also noted that where no dependent of the deceased employee within the prescribed age limit is available for employment, the Bank may at its discretion relax the upper age limit up to a maximum limit of 5 years.
The Court reiterated the principles settled by the Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court noted that the respondent’s father passed away in December 2001 and said that the respondent had been pursuing his claim diligently since then. Hence, irrespective of how old the respondent is presently, his age cannot be determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a consideration of the same on merits.
The Court stated that there cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family.
Further, the Court added that it is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted if all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below the poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in the standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.
The Court observed that indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds and that if such indigence is not proved, a grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that the order of the Bank denying compassionate appointment was unexceptionable and, therefore, not liable to any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, in the interest of justice, the Court directed for payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the respondent.
Deep Karia is the Director at Legalspace, a pioneering LegalTech startup that is reshaping the Indian legal ecosystem through innovative AI-driven solutions. With a robust background in technology and business management, Deep brings a wealth of experience to his role, focusing on enhancing legal research, automating document workflows, and developing cloud-based legal services. His commitment to leveraging technology to improve legal practices empowers legal professionals to work more efficiently and effectively.
