Supreme Court of India
CANARA BANK AND ANR.versusM. MAHESH KUMAR
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 424
- Decided
- 15 May 2015
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- T S THAKUR
Holding
A claim for compassionate appointment must be decided under the scheme in force at the time of the employee's death (the 1993 scheme), and the 2005 circular cannot have retrospective effect.
Summary
The case concerned M. Mahesh Kumar's claim for a compassionate appointment under Canara Bank's 1993 "Dying in Harness" scheme after his father's death in 1998. The bank rejected the claim, later replacing the scheme with a 2005 circular offering only ex‑gratia payments, and argued that the newer scheme barred the appointment. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action arose when the 1993 scheme was in force, and a later administrative circular cannot have retrospective effect to extinguish rights accrued under the earlier scheme. It further ruled that receipt of family pension or terminal benefits does not negate the need for compassionate appointment, and that the scheme must be applied strictly as per its terms. Consequently, the Court directed the bank to reconsider the application under the 1993 scheme and dismissed all appeals filed by the bank.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the 2005 ex‑gratia scheme versus the 1993 compassionate appointment scheme to a claim filed before the newer scheme.
- Whether the 2005 circular can have retrospective effect and defeat rights accrued under the 1993 scheme.
- Whether the passage of time and the grant of family pension/terminal benefits affect entitlement to compassionate appointment.
- Whether a compassionate appointment creates a vested right enforceable by mandamus.
Subjects
compassionate appointmentservice lawDying in Harness Schemeex‑gratia paymentretrospective effectbank employmentdependent familyvested rightadministrative circular
Judgment
[2015]9S.C.R. 724
A CANARABANKANDANR.
v.
M. MAHESH KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No.260/2008 etc.)
B MAY 15, 2015
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Service Law:
C Appointment- Compassionate appointment- Claim for
- Under compassionate appointment scheme of 1993 of the
employer-Bank - Rejection of claim by the Bank - During
pendency of the case for seeking consideration of the claim,
compassionate appointment scheme replaced with the
D scheme of'ex-gratia payment' of 2005- Entitlement to the
claim of compassionate appointment - Held: Claim of
compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular
year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme
that came into force much after the claim - In the present
E case, cause of action arose when 1993 scheme was in force,
hence the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme -
The circular whereby 2005 scheme was brought in, being an
administrative/executive order, cannot have retrospective
F effect- Claimant's family getting family pension and terminal
benefits is of no consequence in considering the application
of compassionate appointment - Direction to Bank to
consider the application of the claimant as per 1993 scheme.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1. TheobjectoftheSchemedatedS.05.1993 ·
vide Circular No.154/1993 for "compassionate
appointment" is to help dependants of employees of the
H 724
CANARA BAN KAND ANR. v. M. MAH ESH KUMAR 725
employer-Bank· who die or become totally and A
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 will be considered only if there are
indigent circumstances necessitating employment to B
one of the dependants and the deceased employee's
service record is unblemished. Mere eligibility will not
vest a right for claiming employment. [Para 9] [732-H;
733-A-C]
c
2. Claim of compassionate appointment under a
scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light
of the subsequent scheme that came into force much
after the claim. In the present case, the cause of action
to be considered for compassionate appointment arose D
when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in
force. Thus, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005
Scher:ne providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular
dated 14.2.2005 being an administrati.\re or executive
order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take E
away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular
of 1993. [Paras 11and13] [734-G; 738-C-D]
State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur(2007) 9 SCC
571: 2007 (2) SCR 101; Bhawani Prasad Sankar vs. Union F
of India & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 209: 2011 (4) SCR 630 - relied
on.
3. The 2005 Scheme providing only for ex-gratia
payment in lieu of compassionate appointment stands G
superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which has revived
the scheme providing for compassionate appointment.
As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide
compassionate appointment. Under these
circumstances, the appellant-Bank is not justified in H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A contending that the application for compassionate
appointment of the respondent cannot be considered
in view of passage of time. [Para 14] [738-E, F]
4. The respondent's family getting family pension
8 and terminal benefits is of no consequence in
considering the application for compassionate
appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in
case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered
appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of
c appointment open till the minor attains the age of
majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal
benefits is of no consequence. [Para 15] [738-G-H; 739-
A-B]
BalbirKaur&Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.
0
(2000) 6 sec 493: 2000 (3) SCR 1053 - relied on.
5. The appellant bank is directed to consider the case
of the respondents for compassionate appointment as
per the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of death
E of the concerned employee. [Para 19] [740-F]
Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1989)
4 SCC 468; MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014)
13 SCC 583: 2013 (10) SCR 1 ; Umesh KumarNagpalvs.
F State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138: State of Manipur
vs. Md. Rajaodin (2003) 7 SCC 511: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR
107 Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors.
(2008) 15 SCC 560: 2008 (14) SCR 824and SanjayKumar
VS. State of Bihar& Ors. (2000) 7 sec 192: 2000 (2) Suppl.
G SCR 710 - referred to.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
(1994) 4 SCC 138; Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs.
Madhusudan Das & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 560: 2008 (14)
H SCR 824; Union of India & Anr. vs. B. Kishore (2011) 4
SCALE 298; State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994)
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 727
4 SCC 448; State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur(2007) A
9 SCC 571: 2007 (2) SCR 101; State Bankoflndia &Anr.
vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 - cited.
Case Law Reference
(1994) 4 sec 138 cited Para4 8
2008 (14). SCR 824 cited Para4
(2011) 4 SCALE 298 cited Para4
(1994) 4 sec 448 cited Para4
c
2007 (2) SCR 101 cited Para4
(2010) 11 sec 661 cited Para 4
D
(1989) 4 sec 468 referred to· Para 7
2013 (10) SCR 1 referred to Para 7
(1994) 4 sec 138 referred to Para 8
E
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 107 referred to Para 8
2008 (14) SCR 824 referred to Para 8
2000 ( 2) Suppl. SCR 710 referred to Para 8
2007 (2) SCR 101 relied on
.
Para 11
F
2011 (4) SCR 630 relied on Para 12
2000 (3) SCR 1053 relied on Para 16
G
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 260
. of2008 .
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2006 High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1313/2003[8]. H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A WITH
C. A. Nos. 266 & 267 of 2008
Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Hetu Arora Sethi,
B Rajeev Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan for the Appellants.
Dr. K. P. K. Pillay, P.A. NoorMuhamed, V. S. Lakshmi, K.
Sarada Devi, Naveen R. Nath for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Common question of law falling
for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the
dependant family members of the deceased employee of the
appellant-Canara Bank were entitled to seek compassionate
D appointment on the basis of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' which
was passed Vide Circular No.154/1993 w.e.f. 8.05.1993. The
claim is resisted by the Canara Bank on the ground that the
financial condition of the family members of the deceased
employees is good and that the Scheme dated 8. 05.1993 has
E been replaced with scheme dated 14.02.2005 (H. 0. Circular
No.35/2005) scrapping the provision of compassionate
appointment and in lieu thereof introduced the new scheme of
ex-gratia payment.
F 2. In Civil Appeal No.260/2008, the Division Bench of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide its Order dated
24.08.2006 in WritAppeal f\jo. 1313/2003 (B) titled as Canara
Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar directed the bank to
reconsider the claim of the claimant- M. Mahesh Kumar within
G two morH:hs from the date of order. Further, due to the pendency
. ~
of SLP against the decision dated 24.08.2006 in Writ Appeal
No.1313/2003(B), the Division Bench of the High Court of
Kerala also disposed off the Writ Appeal Nos.2333/2006 and
2335/2006 vide common order dated 11.12.2006 and directed
H the claimants to approach this Court. Assailing the aforesaid
CANARA BANKAND ANR. v. M. MAH ESH KUMAR 729
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
three decisions of the Division Bench of the Kera la High Court, A
the appellant-bank has filed the instant appeals.
3. For convenience, Civil Appeal No.260/2008 is taken
as a lead case. Brief facts which led to the filing of the appeal
are as follows:- Respondent applied to the appellant-bank on B
30.11.1998 claiming to be considered for compassionate
appointment on account of death of his father, a clerk in the
·appellant-bank who while on duty died on 10.10.1998.
R~spondent had applied forthe compassionate appointment
on account of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' with effect from C
8.05.1993 then in vogue in the_ appellant-bank. The bank vide
its communication dated 30.06.1999 rejected the claim of the
respondent on the ground that the respondent's family financial
position does not show any indigent circumstances warranting
to provide employment on compassionate ground. The D
respondent gave his representation to the General Manager
of the appellant-bank and several other representations for
reconsideration of his claim; but nothing fruitful happened in
consideration of respondent's claim for compassionate
appointment. Thereafter, respondent filed 0. P. No.21630/2002 E
(.Y) before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam seeking to
quash the Ext. P4 and direction to the appellant-bank to appoint
him as per 'Dying in Harness Scheme' then in force in the
appellant-bank. The learned Single Judge of the High Court F
vide judgment dated 30.05.2003 allowed the Original Petition
of the respondent herein and quashed Ext.P4 and directed
the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent
for appointment in accordance with law within two months from
the date of receipt of copy of judgment. Appellant-bank assailed G
the decision of the l~arned Single Judge in Writ Appeal
No.1313/2003 (B) and the Division Bench upholding the order
of the Single Judge dismissed the writ appeal. The appellant-
bank has filed this appeal assailing the correctness of the
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A above order.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank contended that
consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is
contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and
B is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does. not
create a vested right in favour of the ciaimanUrespondent. It.
was submitted that 'Dying in Harness Scheme' is a non-
statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it
does not create a vested right in favour of the claiman.U
C respondent to be enforced through a writ of mandamus. It was
further submitted that _the compassionate appointment is
justified when it is granted to provide immediate succour to
the deceased-employee's dependants and cannot be granted
on the passage of time and in all these cases, the concerned
D employee died about two decades ago and, therefore, the High
Court was not justified in directing the appellant-bank to .
reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate
appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the appellant relied upon number of judgments: Umesh Kumar
E Nagpal vs. State of Haryana And Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138;
Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors.,.
(2008) 15 SCC 560; Union of India & Anr. vs. B. Kishore,
(2011) 4 SCALE 298; State ofHaryana vs. Naresh Kumar
F Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448; State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal
Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 and State Bank of India &Anr. v. Raj
Kumar, (2010) 11sec661.
5. Per contra, learned counsel forthe respondent contends
that the order was passed by the appellant-bank without
G considering the facts that i~ size of the respondent's family/
employment status of his family members and sources of their
income, liabilities and expenses and the decision of the bank ••
rejecting the case of the respondent for compassionate
H appointment is arbitrary. Placing reliance upon Jaspal Kaur's
case (supra) and other decisions, it ·vvas submitted that the
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 731
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
case of the respondent ought to have been considered in the A
light of the Scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme' which was
then in vogue. The respondent averred that the payment of
terminal benefits cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting
employmE'.nt under the 'Dying in Harness Scheme'.
B
6 .. We have considered the rival contentions of both the
parties and perused the impugned judgments and the material.
on record.
7. Law with regard to employment on compassionate c
ground for dependant of a dece~sed employee is well settled. ·
In Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 4
SCC 468, this Court held as thus:
"9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally D
that in all claims for appointment on compassionate
grounds, there should not be any delay in
appointment. The purpose of providing
appointment on compassionate ground is to
mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread E
earner in the family. Such appointment should;
therefore, be provided imn:iediately to redeem the
family in distress. It is improper to keep such case
pending for years. If there is no suitable post for
appointment supernumerary post should be F
created to accommodate the applicant."
The settled law which has been reiterated in various cases
has been succinctly elucidated in MGB Gramin. Bank vs.
Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, wherein it was G
observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted
as of right and the application to be decided as expeditiously
as possible and held as under:-
"6. Every appointment to public office must be made H
by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An
exception by providing employment on
compassionate grounds has been carved out in
order to remove the financial constraints on the
bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner.
B Mere death of a government employee in harness
does not entitle the family to claim compassionate
employment. The competent authority has to
examine the financial condition of the family of the
deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied
c that without providing employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be
offered to the eligible member of the family. More
so, the person claiming such appointment must
possess required eligibility for the post. The
D
consistent view that has been taken by the Court
is that compassionate employment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested
right. The Court should not stretch the provision
E by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits
on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment
should, therefore, be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep
such a case pending for years."
F
(Underlining added)
8. The above consistent view has been reiterated in
various judgments by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs.
State ofHaryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138, State of Manipur
G vs. Md. Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511, Steel Authority of India
Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560 and
SanjayKumar vs. State of Bihar& Ors., (2000) 7SCC192.
9. Before adverting to the arguments of the learned counsel
H for the parties, it is necessary to examine the scope of the
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 733
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Scheme dated 8.05.1993 vide Circular No.154/1993 for A
"compassionate appointment". The object of the Scheme is
to help dependants of employees of Canara Bank who die or
become totally and permanently disabled while in harness and
to overcome the immediate financial difficulties on account of
sudden stoppage c:if the main source of income. The B
employment under the scheme will be considered only if there
are indigent circumstances necessitating employment to one
of the dependants and the deceased employee's service
record is unblemished. Mere eligibility will not vest a right for
claiming employment. As per para 3.1, application for C
employment should be sought within 2Y2 years from the date
of death of the employees. In para 3.2, it is stated that in case
of the dependant of the deceased employee t6 be offered
appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of D
appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority
provided a request is made to the bank by the family of the
deceased employee and the same may be considered subject
to rules prevailing at the time of consideration.
10. During the pendency of the matter before the Division E
Bench, Indian Banks Association (for short 'IBA') formulated a
scheme based on the guidelines issued by the Government of
India. As per the said Scheme, the banks have scrapped the
scheme of compassionate appointment and introduced the F
new scheme of ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate
appointment by H.O. Circular No.35/2005 dated 14.02.2005.
According to appellant-Bank, as on date of consideration of
the application for compassionate appointment, there was no
policy to provide compassionate appointment under 'Dying in G
Harness Scheme'. It is therefore the contention of the bank
that the new scheme of 2005 applies to all pending
applications for appointment on compassionate ground,
respondent's case could not be considered and as per the
new Scheme, they are only entitled to ex-gratia payment in H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 9 S.C.R.
A lieu of compassionate appointment.
11. The main question falling for consideration is whether
the Scheme passed in 2005 providing for ex-gratia payment
or the Scheme then in vogue in 1993 providing for
B compassionate appointment is applicable to the respondent.
Appellant-bank has placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in Jaspal Kaur's case (supra) to contend that the
respondent's case cannot be considered on the basis of
'Dying in Harness Scheme 1993' when the new Scheme of
C 2005 providing for ex-gratia payment had been put in place.
In Jaspa/ Kaur's case (supra), Sukhbir lnder Singh employee
of state Bank of India, Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts)
passed away on 1.08.1999. Widow of the employee applied
for compassionate appointment in State Bank of India on
D 5.02.2000. On 7 .01.2002, the competent authority of the bank
rejected the application of Jaspal Kaur in view of the Scheme
vis-a-vis the financial position of the family. Against that
decision of the competent authority, the respondent filed writ
petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which has
E directed to consider the case of Jaspal Kaur by applying the
Scheme formulated on 4.08.2005 when her application was
made in the year 2000. In that factual matrix, this Court has
directed that dispute arising in the year 2000 cannot be decided
F on the basis of a Scheme that was put in place much after the
dispute. By perusal of the judgment in Jaspa/ Kaur's case, it
is apparent that the judgment specifically states that claim of
compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular
year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme
G that came into force much after the claim. ·
12. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in the
case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(2011) 4 sec 209, wherein it was held as under:-
H "15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 735
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
employment is given solely on humanitarian A
grounds with the sole object to provide immediate
relief to the employee's family to tide over the
sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. Appointment based solely on
descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, B
and ordinarily public employment must be strictly
on the basis of open invitation of applications and
comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode
of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the C
concept of compassionate appointment has been
recognised as an exception to the general rule,
carved out in the interest of justice, in certain
exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which
0
partakes the character of the service rules. That
being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme
or the policy. as the case may be, is binding both
on the employer and the employee. Being an
exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed E
and confined only to the purpose it seeks to
achieve.
17. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, F
(1994) 4 sec 138, while emphasising that a
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as
a matter of course or in posts above Classes Ill and
IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, para
2) G
"2.... The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to tide over
the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a
member of such family a post much less a post for H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A post held by the deceased. What is further, mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle
his family to such source of livelihood. The
Government or the public authority concerned has
to examine the financial condition of the family of
B the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but
for the provision of employment, the family will not
be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered
to the eligible member of the family. The posts in
Classes Ill and IV are the lowest posts in non-
c manual and manual categories and hence they
alone can be offered on compassionate grounds,
the object being to relieve the family, of the financial
destitution and to help it get over the emergency.
The provision of employment in such lowest posts
D
by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and
valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable
treatment given to such dependant of the deceased
employee in such posts has a rational nexus with
E the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or required
to be given by the public authorities for the purpose.
It must be remembered in this connection that as
against the destitute family of the deceased there
F are millions of other farftilies which are equally, if
not more destitute. The exception to the .rule made
in favour of the family of the deceased employee is
in consideration of the services rendered by him
and the legitimate expectations, and the change in
G the status and affairs, of the family engendered by
the erstwhile employment which are "suddenly
upturned."
H
20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 737
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
on compassionate ground, the following factors A
have to be borne in mind:
(1) Compassionate employment cannot be made in
the absence of rules or regulations issued by the
Government or a public authority. The request is to B
be considered strictly in accordance with the
governing scheme, and no discretion as such is
left with any authority to make compassionate
appointment dehors the scheme.
c
(i1) An application for compassionate employment
must be preferred without undue delay and has to
be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is
0
to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family
on account of the death or medical invalidation of
the breadwinner while in service. Therefore,
compassionate employment cannot be granted as
a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective E
of the financial condition of the deceased/
incapacitated employee's family at the time of his
death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only F
to one of the dependants of the deceased/
incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son
or daughter and not to all relatives, and such
appointments should be only to the lowest
category that is Class Ill and IV posts," G
(Underlining added)
13. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as
discussed earlier, respondent's father di~d on 10.10,.1998
while he was serving as a clerk in the appellant-bank and the H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as
per the scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme' dated 8.05.1993
which was in force at that time. The appellant-bank rejected
the respondent's claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are
no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the
B respondent. Again on 7 .11.2001, the appellant-bank sought
for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent's
employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above
decisions, the cause of action to be considered for
compassionate appointment arose when the Circular
C No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the
ju'dgment referred in Jaspal Kaur's case, the claim cannot be
decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex-gratia payment.
The Circular dated 14.2.2005 being an administrative or
executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take
0
away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of
1993.
14. It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme providing
only for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate
E appointment stands superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which
. has revived the scheme providing for compassionate
appointment. As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide
compassionate appointment. Under these circumstances, the
F appellant-bank is not justified in contending that the application
for compassionate appointment of the respondent cannot be
considered in view of passage of time.
15. Insofar as the contention of the appellant-bank that
since the respondent's family is getting family pension and
G also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no
consequence in considering the application for compassionate
appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case
the dependant of deceased employee to be offered
H appointment is_ a minor, the bank may keep the offer of
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 739
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. This A
would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no
consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, ifthe
applicant is a minor, the bank would keep the appointment
open till the minor attains the majority.
B
16. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. &
Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493, while dealing with the application
made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground
applicable.to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was
that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit C
Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the
deceased employee, the request for compassionate
appointment cannot be acceded to. RejeQting that contention
in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:-
D
"13 ..... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme
cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of
compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in
the family by reason of the death of the breadearner
can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount E
being made available to the family - this is rather
unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of
security drops to zero on the death of the
breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it
is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is F
made available with a compassionate appointment,
the grief-stricker. family may find some solace to
the mental agony and manage its affairs in the
normal course of events. It is not that monetary
benefit would be the replacement of the G
breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring
some solace to the situation."
Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd. 's case, High Court
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
A has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of
temlinal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing
employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it
is not the case of the bank that the respondents' family is having
any other income to negate their claim for appointment on
B compassionate ground.
17. Considering the scope of the Scheme 'Dying in
Harness Scheme 1993' then in force and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the
C appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for
compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as
per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any
reason warranting interference.
D 18. So far as the cases in Civil Appeal No.266/2008 and
Civil Appeal No.267/2008 are concerned, they are similar and.
those respondents are similarly placed and the appeals
preferred by the bank are liable to be dismissed. The appellant-
bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents in
E Civil Appeal Nos. 266/2008 and 267/2008.
19. In the result, all the appeals preferred by the appellant-
bank are dismissed and the appellant bank is directed to
consider the case of the respondents for compassionate
F appointment as per the Scheme which was in vogue at the •
time of death of the concerned employee. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.
G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "compassionate appointment"Sign in to search