# Amit Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 2110
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-18
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 15743 of 2018
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-44705
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A.S.G.,
Ajay
Kumar
Pandey,
P.K.
Srivastava

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Scheme of 1998; Clause 10(a)
and 16(c) - claim for compassionate
appointment rejected - competent authority
was under obligation to consider the
financial
condition
-
compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter
of right - Tribunal righty dismissed claim
petition in light of the proven financial status
of the family of the deceased

The Court while relying on the judgment in State of
Himachal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Shashi Kumar held
that
there
is
no
right
to
compassionate
appointment. While considering the application for
compassionate appointment in light of the policies
framed therein and judgments on this issue, the
benefits received by the family on account of family
welfare measures including family pension and
death gratuity as well as income from other
resources are required to be considered. (Para 12)

Writ Petition dismissed (E-10)

Precedent
followed:-
2 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.
2111

## Text

2110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and/or the terms and conditions of the
office/post. As stated in paragraphs 41 and 50
in Gopal Chandra Misra; (1978) 2 SCC 301,
"in the absence of anything to the contrary in
the provisions governing the terms and
conditions of the office/post" or "in the
absence
of
a
legal
contractual
or
constitutional bar, a ''prospective resignation'
can be withdrawn at any time before it
becomes effective". Further, as laid down in
Balram Gupta; 1987 Supp SCC 228, "If,
however, the administration had made
arrangements acting on his resignation or
letter of retirement to make other employee
available for his job, that would be another
matter.""

30. Thus, considering the settled
proposition of law on the issue of withdrawal
of resignation, as stated hereinabove and
admitted facts of the present case to the effect
that the petitioner submitted his resignation
from service on 25.11.1987, on personal
grounds and the same was accepted by the
opposite party No. 5 on 19.12.1987 and
acceptance of resignation was in the
knowledge of the petitioner and thereafter, for
withdrawal
of
the
resignation,
the
representation was submitted, on which order
dated 25.07.1990 was passed, whereby the
request of re-employment made in the
representation was rejected, we are of the
view that after acceptance of resignation, it
was not open for the petitioner to withdraw
the same subsequently. Hence, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
dated 11.12.1997, passed by the Tribunal in
Claim Petition No. 626/V/1990 [Suresh Singh
v. State of U.P. and others], which is under
challenge in the present writ petition.

31. Resultantly, the writ petition
lacks merits. Hence, dismissed. No order
as to costs.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 2110

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Service Bench No. 15743 of 2018

Amit Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Neeraj Kumar Rai, Umesh Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.,
Ajay
Kumar
Pandey,
P.K.
Srivastava

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Scheme of 1998; Clause 10(a)
and 16(c) - claim for compassionate
appointment rejected - competent authority
was under obligation to consider the
financial
condition
-
compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter
of right - Tribunal righty dismissed claim
petition in light of the proven financial status
of the family of the deceased

The Court while relying on the judgment in State of
Himachal Pradesh and Anr Vs. Shashi Kumar held
that
there
is
no
right
to
compassionate
appointment. While considering the application for
compassionate appointment in light of the policies
framed therein and judgments on this issue, the
benefits received by the family on account of family
welfare measures including family pension and
death gratuity as well as income from other
resources are required to be considered. (Para 12)

Writ Petition dismissed (E-10)

Precedent
followed:-
2 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.
2111

1. St of H.P. & Anr Vs Shashi Kumar
(2019) 3 SCC 653

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1- Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioner and learned Counsel for the
respondents.

2- The petitioner has filed the
present writ petition, for the following
main reliefs:-

"1. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
thereby quashing the impugned judgment
and
order
passed
by
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 12.04.2017
and Rejection Order dated 23.07.2015
passed by O.P. No. 4 Assistant General
Manager, Lucknow, contained Annexure
No. 1 and 9 to the writ petition.

2. To issue a Writ, Order or
Direction in the nature of Mandamus
Commanding the Opp. Parties to consider
the case of the petitioner for Appointment
under
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment dated 09.10.1998, in the
interest of Justice."

3- The brief facts of the case are that
father of the petitioner was working in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. on the post of
Phone Mechanic. On 15.07.2005, the
father of the petitioner died and the
petitioner moved an application dated
23.02.2006
for
compassionate
appointment before the General Manager
Telicom, BSNL, Faizabad and the same
was forwarded to the Chief General
Manager, Telecom, U.P. (East) Circle,
Lucknow. Thereafter, vide letter/order
dated
21.01.2018,
the
High
Power
Committee rejected the application of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment.
Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order
dated 21.01.2018, the petitioner filed the
Original Application No. 404 of 2009
before
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") and the
same was allowed by the order dated
06.05.2011. The Tribunal directed the
opposite parties to consider the case of the
petitioner afresh in view of Circular dated
09.10.1998. The relevant portion of the
order dated 06.05.2011, is reproduced
below:-

" Finally, therefore, in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
O.A. deserves to be and is accordingly
allowed. The impugned order dated
21.1.2008
(Annexure
-1)
alongwith
minutes of the High Power Committee
dated
11.12.2007
passed
by
the
respondent authorities, so far it relates to
the applicant, are hereby set aside. The
respondents are directed to consider the
case of the applicant afresh in view of the
relevant O.M./circulars which were in
force at the relevant time, ignoring the
subsequent
circular
letter
dated
27.06.2007
which
cannot
have
retrospective effect. As the matter is
already become quite old, it is desirable
that this matter is finalized within a
reasonable period say within 6 months
from the date of certified copy of this
order is produced by the applicant to the
respondents. No order as to costs."

4- Thereafter, the order dated
06.05.2011 passed by the Tribunal in
O.A. No. 404 of 2009 , was challenged by
the opposite parties by filing Writ Petition
No.1877(SB) of 2011 (Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. Versus Amit Kumar Singh)
and the same was also dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 03.11.2011, which
reads as under:-
2112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"We have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the pleadings of writ
petition.

Learned
counsel
for
petitioner,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, submitted
that the direction to reconsider the case of
respondent as given vide the impugned
order is contrary to a judgment of Hon'ble
the Apex Court reported in 2007 (1) ESC
66 (SC) (State Bank of India & Others vs.
Jaspal Kaur) which has laid down the
ratio that unless the financial condition is
entirely
penury,
compassionate
appointment cannot be made. In the said
case, the financial condition of the
applicant was not found to be one of
destitution and besides the Bank had
already paid a sum of Rs. 4,57,607.00 as
terminal benefits apart from payment of a
pensionary benefit of Rs. 2055/- per
month.

On a careful consideration of rival
submissions, we do not find any merit in
the case for the reason that the Tribunal
has only directed the Corporation to
reconsider the case of the respondent and
has not issued any direction to give
appointment on compassionate ground.

Thus, the Writ Petition is dismissed."

5- Thereafter, the opposite parties
challenged the order of this Court dated
03.11.2011 by filing Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 13043 of 2012 and the
same was dismissed vide order dated
18.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner, in
relation to appointment on compassionate
ground, submitted the representation
before
the
concerned
authorities
alongwith the orders of this Court, but no
action was taken by them. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 58
of 2015 before the Tribunal and thereafter
the opposite party no. 4 rejected the
representation/application
of
the
petitioner by its order dated 23.07.2015.

6- Aggrieved by the order dated
23.07.2015, the petitioner preferred a
claim petition O.A. No. 475 of 2015
under Section 19 of Administrative
Tribunal Act 1985, before the Tribunal,
with the following reliefs:-

"1. Issuing/passing of an order or
direction setting aside the impugned
decision dated 23.07.2015 passed by the
respondent No. 4 communicated vide
letter/order dated 04.08.2015, issued by
the respondent No. 3 (as contained in
Annexure No. A-1), after summoning the
original records.

2. Issuing/passing of an order or
direction to the respondents to consider
the case of the applicant afresh for
appointment on compassionate grounds
and to appoint the applicant on any post
according
to
his
eligibility
and
educational qualification, etc. within a
period of two months."

7- Tribunal after considering the
pleadings given by the learned Counsel
for the parties and on the material on
record,
vide
order
dated
12.04.2017,dismissed the claim petition .
The relevant portion of the order dated
12.04.2017, is reproduced below:-

"15. After taking into consideration
the rival submissions of the parties, this
Tribunal is of the view that this petition
lacks merit and liable to be dismissed on
following grounds:

(i)
that
the
applicant's
family
received
the
terminal
benefits
of
approximately six lakh coupled with
family pension of more than three
thousand per month apart from D.A. (ii)
the fact that the income from the
cultivation is Rs. 3000/- per month has
not been rebutted and the same was based
2 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.
2113
on the report of Revenue Authorities i.e.
SDE (HRD) Faizabad. Same was also
reflected in the income certificate issued
by the Tehshildar, Amdbedkarnagar.

(iii) the applicant's family purchased
a house as is evident from the report after
the death of the deceased employee.

(iv) both the sons are major and the
applicant
is
residing
in
a
rented
accommodation near township of NTPC,
Ambedkarnagar on monthly rent of Rs.
2500/- which shows that the applicant has
sufficient means to survive and the family
cannot be said to be living in penurious
condition.

(v) that the entire agricultural land
which has been shown in extract Khatoni
is not the same but has been shown as
only 0.5 acres.

(vi) that the property possessed and
shown in the inspection report has not
been specifically denied and rejoinder has
been filed by simply denying the
allegation. Due to evasive denial the facts
pleaded in CA amounts to be admitted by
the applicant.

16. In view of the above, the O.A.
sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order to cost."

8- Assailing the orders impugned,
the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the concerned authorities and
Tribunal, both, rejected the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate ground after
considering
the
terminal/pensionary
benefits received, on account of death of
his father, by the family of the petitioner,
income from agricultural and other aspect
and as such Tribunal as well as concerned
authorities erred in law and fact both, as
the reasons of rejection of claim of the
petitioner
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground are beyond the
scope
of
scheme
of
compassionate
appointment dated 09.10.1998 ( in short
"Scheme of 1998") (Annexure No. 10 to
the writ petition). The reasons for
rejection of claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment cannot be
taken into account as per Scheme of 1998.

9- Per contra, the learned Counsel
for the respondents submitted that the
reasons considered while rejecting the
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment can be taken into account, as
per Scheme of 1998. Thus, there is no
illegality in the order dated 12.04.2017 of
the Tribunal as well as order 23.07.2015
passed by respondent no. 4.

10- We have considered the
submissions of learned Counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

11- We find from Scheme of 1998
(Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition),
particularly Clause 10(a), 16(c), that
while considering the case for providing
compassionate
appointment,
the
competent authority is under obligation to
consider the financial condition of the
family. Clause 10(a) and 16(c) are quoted
herein under for ready reference:-

"10(a) In deserving cases even where
there is already an earning member in the
family, a dependent family member may
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment with prior approval of the
Secretary of the Department/Ministry
concerned who, before approving such
appointment, will satisfy himself that
grant of compassionate appointment is
justified having regard to number of
dependents, assets and liabilities left by
the Government Servant, income of the
earning member as also his liabilities
including the fact that the earning member
2114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is residing with the family of the
Government Servant and whether he
should not be a source of support to other
members of the family.

16 (c) The Scheme of compassionate
appointments was conceived as far back
as 1958. Since then a number of welfare
measures have been introduced by the
government
which
have
made
a
significant difference in the financial
position
of
the
families
of
the
Government
Servants
dying
in
harness/retired on medical grounds. An
application
for
compassionate
appointment should, however, not be
rejected merely on the ground that the
family of the Government Servant has
received the benefits under the various
welfare schemes. While considering a
request for appointment on compassionate
ground
a
balanced
and
objective
assessment of the financial condition of
the family has to be made taking into
account its assets and liabilities (including
the benefits received under the various
welfare schemes mentioned above) and
all other relevant factors such as the
presence of an earning member, size of
the family, ages of the children and the
essential needs of the family, etc.

12- In the facts of the case we would
like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court passed in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh and Another Versus
Shashi Kumar, reported in (2019) 3
SCC 653: (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542.

The Hon'ble Apex Court after
considering the policy of compassionate
appointment and relevant judgments on
the issue, held that benefits received by
family on account of welfare measures
including family pension and death
gratuity as well as income from other
resources are required to be considered.
The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that
there is no right to compassionate
appointment. The terms of policies
framed
for
providing
compassionate
appointment must be implemented. The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as
under:-

"18. While considering the rival
submissions, it is necessary to bear in
mind that compassionate appointment is
an exception to the general rule that
appointment to any public post in the
service of the State has to be made on the
basis of principles which accord with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Dependants of a deceased employee of
the State are made eligible by virtue of the
policy on compassionate appointment.
The basis of the policy is that it
recognises that a family of a deceased
employee may be placed in a position of
financial hardship upon the untimely
death of the employee while in service. It
is the immediacy of the need which
furnishes the basis for the State to allow
the benefit of compassionate appointment.
Where the authority finds that the
financial and other circumstances of the
family are such that in the absence of
immediate assistance, it would be reduced
to being indigent, an application from a
dependent member of the family could be
considered. The terms on which such
applications would be considered are
subject to the policy which is framed by
the State and must fulfil the terms of the
policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled
principle of law that there is no right to
compassionate appointment. But, where
there is a policy, a dependent member of
the family of a deceased employee is
entitled to apply for compassionate
appointment and to seek consideration of
the application in accordance with the
2 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.
2115
terms and conditions which are prescribed
by the State.

19. The policy in the present case
which was formulated on 18-1-1990
categorically
speaks
of
providing
employment assistance to dependants of
government servants who have died while
in service, "leaving their families in
indigent circumstances". The policy, in
other words, is designed to meet the needs
of those families where the death of a
government servant has left them in
indigent
circumstances,
requiring
immediate means of subsistence. The
policy recognises in Para (10) that the
benefits which are received by a family
on account of welfare measures are
required to be considered. Among them,
the policy stipulates that family pension
and death gratuity are required to be taken
into account in assessing the financial
circumstances of the family. The policy
does not preclude the dependants of a
deceased employee from being considered
for compassionate appointment merely
because they are in receipt of family
pension. What the policy mandates is that
the receipt of family pension should be
taken into account in considering whether
the family has been left in indigent
circumstances requiring immediate means
of subsistence. The receipt of family
pension
is,
therefore,
one
of
the
considerations which is to be taken into
account. Para (10)(c) of the policy sets out
the measures provided by the State which
have a bearing on the financial need of the
family.

20. In view of the clear terms of the
policy, we are of the view that the High
Court was in error in issuing a mandamus
to the Government to disregard its policy.
Such direction could not have been issued
by the High Court. The High Court has
drawn sustenance in issuing a mandamus
in the above terms from a decision of this
Court
in
Govind
Prakash
Verma
[Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005)
10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] .
That was a case of compassionate
appointment where in the course of the
proceedings before the High Court, a
learned Single Judge had directed Life
Insurance Corporation, which was the
employer of the deceased employee, to
make an enquiry and submit a report on
whether the members of the family
engaged in gainful employment were also
supporting the family of the deceased
employee. This Court, in an appeal
against the judgment of the High Court
rejecting the petition for compassionate
appointment, observed that the officer
who had enquired into the matter in
pursuance of the order of the learned
Single Judge completely omitted to
furnish any report on the points which
were required by the High Court to be
investigated. The High Court rejected the
petition on the ground that the family was
in receipt of family pension and other
amounts
towards
terminal
benefits.
Reversing the view of the High Court, a
two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus:
(Govind Prakash Verma case [Govind
Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC
289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] , SCC p.
291, para 6)

"6. In our view, it was wholly
irrelevant for the departmental authorities
and the learned Single Judge to take into
consideration the amount which was
being paid as family pension to the widow
of the deceased (which amount, according
to the appellant, has now been reduced to
half) and other amounts paid on account
of terminal benefits under the Rules."

21. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
(2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
2116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
590] has been considered subsequently in
several decisions. But, before we advert to
those decisions, it is necessary to note that
the nature of compassionate appointment
had been considered by this Court in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . The principles
which have been laid down in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal
v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been
subsequently followed in a consistent line
of precedents in this Court. These
principles
are
encapsulated
in
the
following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal
case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 930] , SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)

"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the
public services should be made strictly on
the basis of open invitation of applications
and merit. No other mode of appointment
nor any other consideration is permissible.
Neither the Governments nor the public
authorities are at liberty to follow any
other procedure or relax the qualifications
laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to
be followed strictly in every case, there
are some exceptions carved out in the
interests of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in
favour of the dependants of an employee
dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of
livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both
ends meet, a provision is made in the
rules to provide gainful employment to
one of the dependants of the deceased
who may be eligible for such employment.
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 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 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 III and IV
are the lowest posts in non-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 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 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 are millions of
other families 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 the status and
affairs, of the family engendered by the
erstwhile employment which are suddenly
upturned."

22. Specifically in the context of
considering the financial circumstances of
2 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.
2117
the family of the deceased employee,
several judgments of this Court have
elaborated on the principles to be
followed.
23. The decision in SBI v. Kunti Tiwary
[SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271
: 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] involved an
interpretation of an Office Memorandum
dated 7-8-1996 circulated to all banks in
the light of the decision in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal
v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . The Indian
Banks Association adopted the directions
of this Court in the scheme which was
proposed for the appointment of heirs of
deceased
employees.
The
scheme
contemplated that in order to determine
the financial condition of the family, the
following amounts would have to be
taken into account: (Kunti Tiwary case
[SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271
: 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] , SCC p. 273,
para 7)

"7. ... (a) Family pension.

(b) Gratuity amount received.

(c)
Employee's/Employer's
contribution to provident fund.

(d) Any compensation paid by the
Bank or its Welfare Fund.

(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other
investments of the deceased employee. (f)

Income of family from other sources.

(g) Employment of other family
members.

(h) Size of the family and liabilities,
if any, etc."
Eventually, this recommendation was
accepted in the scheme. In the light of
these recommendations and the scheme,
this Court observed that where the family
of a deceased employee was not left
without means of livelihood, the claim for
compassionate appointment could not be
sustained. It may be noted that in that case
it was on a review of the overall financial
position of the family, including amounts
received towards terminal benefits that
the decision was taken.

24. The decision of this Court in
Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini
Kumar Taneja [Punjab National Bank
v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7
SCC 265 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 938]
followed the same principle. While
reiterating the view which was taken in
Kunti Tiwary [SBI v. Kunti Tiwary,
(2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
943] , this Court held that the scheme
specified
the
amounts
which
were
required to be taken into consideration.

25. The decision in SBI v. Somvir
Singh [SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4
SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92] has
noticed the scheme for appointment of
dependants of deceased employees on
compassionate grounds framed by State
Bank of India. The Court expressly held
that the authorities were not in error in
taking account of the terminal benefits,
investments and the monthly family
income including the family pension paid
by the Bank. The view of this Court finds
expression in the following extract: (SCC
p. 784, para 12)

"12. The competent authority while
considering the application had taken into
consideration each one of those factors
and accordingly found that the dependants
of the employee who died in harness are
not in penury and without any means of
livelihood. The authority did not commit
any error in taking the terminal benefits
and the investments and the monthly
family income including the family
pension
paid
by
the
Bank
into
consideration for the purposes of deciding
as to whether the family of late Zile Singh
had been left in penury or without any
means of livelihood. The scheme framed
2118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the appellant Bank in fact mandates
the authority to take those factors into
consideration. The authority also did not
commit
any
error
in
taking
into
consideration the income of the family
from other sources viz. the agricultural
land."

In the view of this Court, the only
issue to be considered was whether the
claim for compassionate appointment had
been considered in accordance with the
scheme. The income of the family from
all sources was required to be taken into
consideration according to the scheme.
This having been ignored by the High
Court, the appeal filed by the Bank was
allowed.

26. The judgment of a Bench of two
Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v.
State of Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus
Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008)
11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S)
1077] has adopted the principle that
appointment on compassionate grounds is
not a source of recruitment, but a means
to enable the family of the deceased to get
over a sudden financial crisis. The
financial position of the family would
need to be evaluated on the basis of the
provisions contained in the scheme. The
decision in Govind Prakash Verma
[Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005)
10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has
been duly considered, but the Court
observed that it did not appear that the
earlier binding precedents of this Court
have been taken note of in that case.

27. In Union of India v. Shashank
Goswami [Union of India v. Shashank
Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 : (2013) 1
SCC (L&S) 51] , this Court considered a
circular issued by the Office of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India
in terms of which the total income of the
family
from
all
sources,
including
terminal benefits received, was required
to be taken into account. Income limits
were specified in the circular for Group
''B', Group ''C' and Group ''D' posts.
Taking note of the fact that a family
pension has been authorised to the widow
of the deceased employee, this Court held
that the case of the dependant did not fall
within the income limits meant for Group
''C' posts.

28. The same principle has been
reiterated in another decision of a Bench
of two Judges of this Court in SBI v.
Surya Narain Tripathi [SBI v. Surya
Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 :
(2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689] . While
adverting to a submission of the learned
counsel based on the decision in Govind
Prakash
Verma
[Govind
Prakash
Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 590] , this Court noted
thus: (Surya Narain Tripathi case [SBI v.
Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC
739 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689] , SCC p.
741, paras 8-9)

"8. He relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Govind Prakash Verma v.
LIC [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
(2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
590] where a view has been taken that the
compassionate appointment cannot be
refused on the ground that another
member of the family had received
appropriate employment and the service
benefits were adequate. We may humbly
state that this view runs counter to the
view which was taken earlier in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal
v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 930] which was not
cited before the Court in Govind Prakash
[Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005)
10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] .
The subsequent two judgments which
were referred above also take the same
2 All. Amit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.
2119
view as in Umesh Kumar Nagpal
[Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 930] . Mr Vikas Singh has drawn
our attention to the judgment in SBI v.
Somvir Singh [SBI v. Somvir Singh,
(2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)
92] where the 1998 Scheme has been
considered.

9. In all the matters of compassionate
appointment it must be noticed that it is
basically a way out for the family which
is financially in difficulties on account of
the death of the breadearner. It is not an
avenue for a regular employment as such.
This is in fact an exception to the
provisions under Article 16 of the
Constitution. That being so, if an
employer points out that the financial
arrangement
made
for
the
family
subsequent to the death of the employee is
adequate, the members of the family
cannot insist that one of them ought to be
provided a comparable appointment. This
being the principle which has been
adopted all throughout, it is difficult for
us to accept the submission made on
behalf of the respondent."

29. Now, it is in this background that
it would be necessary to advert to the
decision in Canara Bank [Canara Bank
v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC
412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] . A
scheme for compassionate appointment of
8-5-1993 was prevalent in Canara Bank
when the employee died on duty in
October 1998. Faced with the rejection of
an
application
for
compassionate
appointment, the High Court was moved
in a writ petition in which a learned
Single Judge issued [M. Mahesh Kumar
v. Canara Bank, 2003 SCC OnLine Ker
657 : (2003) 98 FLR 1030] a direction for
reconsideration
of
the
claim
for
appointment. During the pendency of the
appeal before the Division Bench, the
scheme for compassionate appointment
was replaced by a new scheme providing
for ex gratia in lieu of appointment. The
main issue which fell for consideration
before this Court was whether the
subsequent scheme which was formulated
in 2005 providing for ex gratia payment
would govern or whether the application
would have to be disposed of on the basis
of the earlier scheme of 1993. It may be
noted
that
the
application
for
compassionate appointment in that case
had been rejected on the ground that the
family of the respondent was not in
indigent circumstances, as required by the
scheme for compassionate appointment of
1993.

30. Dealing with the applicability of
the subsequent scheme, a Bench of two
Judges of this Court held, following the
earlier decision in SBI v. Jaspal Kaur
[SBI v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578] , that the cause
of
action
to
be
considered
for
compassionate appointment arose when
the earlier scheme was in force. Hence,
the claim could not be decided on the
basis of the subsequent scheme which
provided only for the payment of ex
gratia. Moreover, as a matter of fact, the
subsequent scheme was superseded in
2014 by reviving the scheme for the
provision of compassionate appointment.
31. Hence, the issue which has been dealt
with in Canara Bank [Canara Bank v.
M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 :
(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] is whether the
application for grant of compassionate
appointment could have been rejected on
the basis of a scheme which had come
into force after the date of submission of
the application. That, as this Court
observed, was the main question which
fell for consideration. The Bench of two
2120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judges, however, also noted that it was
urged on behalf of the appellant Bank that
the family of the respondent was in
receipt of family pension. This, the Court
held,
was
of
no
consequence
in
considering
the
application
for
compassionate
appointment.

32. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants has
sought
to
distinguish
the
above
observations, in the judgment in Canara
Bank [Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh
Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2
SCC (L&S) 539] , by submitting that it is
not the case of the State of Himachal
Pradesh that mere receipt of family
pension would disable an applicant from
submitting
an
application
for
compassionate appointment or preclude
consideration of the claim. On the
contrary, the submission which is urged is
that the scheme requires consideration of
all relevant sources of income and hence,
receipt of family pension would be one of
the criteria which would be taken into
consideration
in
determining
as
to
whether the family of the deceased
employee is in indigent circumstances.
We find merit in this submission for the
simple reason that it is in accord with the
express terms of the scheme of 18-1-1990
as modified by the State. The scheme
contemplates that payments which have
been received on account of welfare
measures provided by the State including
family pension are to be taken into
account. Plainly, the terms of the scheme
must be implemented.

33. For these reasons, we have come
to the conclusion that the High Court was
not justified, based on the decision in
Govind
Prakash
Verma
[Govind
Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC
289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] in issuing a
direction to the State to act in a manner
contrary to the express terms of the
scheme which require that the family
pension received by the dependents of the
deceased
employee
be
taken
into
account."

13- Learned Counsel for the petitioner
could not point out any other good reason or
ground to establish that the reasoning given
by the Tribunal and respondent no. 4, while
rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is
unjustified and illegal.

14- Keeping in view the provision of
the scheme of 1998 and the observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment passed in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh(Supra), we hold that
there is no illegality in the order dated
12.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal and
order
dated
23.07.2015
passed
by
respondent no. 4. For the aforesaid
reason, we do not find a fit case for
interference.

15- The petition is misconceived and
hence dismissed accordingly.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 2120

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Service Bench No. 268 of 2019

Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ravindra Kumar Singh & Anr.
 ...Respondents