Compassionate Appointments: Reserved for Genuine “Hand-to-Mouth” Cases – SC

Canara Bank Vs Ajithkumar G.K. (Supreme Court of India)

Grant of compassionate appointment should be only in “hand-to-mouth” cases subject to all the other conditions being fulfilled: Supreme Court

Conclusion: Employment on compassionate grounds had been evolved to help dependents, of our employees who die or become totally and permanently disabled while in harness, and to overcome the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income. The employment under the ‘Scheme’ would be considered only if there were indigent circumstances necessitating employment to one of the dependents and the deceased employees service record was unblemished. Mere eligibility would not vest a right for claiming employment. The Bank reserved the right to reject the application received under the ‘Scheme’.

Held: In the instant case, father of the respondent passed away on 20^th December, 2001 while in service of the appellant. He had 4 (four) months service left prior to superannuation. A scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, formulated by appellant and contained in Circular No. 154/93 dated 8^th May, 1993⁵, was in force when such death occurred. Within a month of his father’s death, the respondent applied on 15^th January, 2002 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Respondent’s plea was spurned by the Deputy General Manager on the reason: (i) mother of the respondent is in receipt of family pension of Rs. 4367.92p and hence the financial position of the family does not warrant an appointment on compassionate ground; and (ii) the respondent was overaged for the post of “Prob. Peon”. The order passed by the Deputy General Manager refusing the respondent appointment on compassionate ground was held by the High Court to be not at all in accordance with the scheme of 1993 launched by the appellant; further that, while reconsidering the prayer of the respondent and his mother, the appellant did not advert properly to the laudable object of the scheme, especially its power to relax the age as provided under paragraph 5.1 thereof; also that, the orders impugned were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the appellant was directed to reconsider the issues raised by the respondent taking into account the scheme of 1993 as well as the principles laid down in the decisions of this Court in Canara Bank v M Mahesh Kumar⁸ and State Bank of India v Somveer Singh⁹ as well as any other relevant decision that was pointed out by the respondent. Accordingly, upon setting aside of the orders impugned, the appellant was directed to take a decision in the matter, as directed, within 45 (forty-five) days. In furtherance of the aforesaid judgment and order, the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer¹⁰ of the appellant re-examined the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment and once again declined favourable consideration of the claim. The core issue arising for decision on this appeal was, whether the Division Bench of the High Court was unjustified in not allowing the intra-court appeal of the appellant and in upholding the judgment of the Single Judge while directing the respondent’s appointment at a point of time when he was past 44 (forty-four) years of age. It was held that Division Bench, feeling bound by Canara Bank, did not have the occasion to enter into a proper examination of the order of the MD & CEO. It was the clear impression that the said order was in the teeth of what was held in paragraph 19 by this Court in Canara Bank. However, at the same time, notwithstanding Canara Bank case, the Division Bench ought not to have overlooked the criterion relating to suitability while directing appointment of the respondent straightaway. To this extent, Appellant was right that the question of suitability was left untouched by Canara Bank and the appellant ought not to have been made to suffer an order on its appeal having more adverse consequences than the order on the writ petition. In the fitness of things, It was decided to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Another coordinate bench seized of this appeal appeared to have observed that it would consider making a direction for payment of a lumpsum amount to the respondent towards full and final settlement and, accordingly, time was granted to the parties to obtain instructions. Though no agreement was reached and whether the respondent was covered under the scheme of 2005 for lumpsum ex-gratia payment had not been examined by us as well as by the High Court, but bearing in mind the approach of the coordinate bench coupled with the circumstance of hope being generated in the mind of the respondent for appointment based on his success before the High Court, in the interest of justice, it would be sufficiently served if the appellant was directed to make a lumpsum payment of Rs.2.5 lakh to the respondent within a period of 2 (two) months from date and the proceedings be closed. In the final analysis, the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench as well as that of the Single Bench stood set aside.