# Chanchal Sonkar v. Chairman, SBI & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 89
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-02
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1680 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chanchal-sonkar-v-chairman-sbi-ors-53271
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Scheme for Compassionate
Appointments or Payment of Ex Gratia
Financial
Relief
to
Dependents
of
Deceased Employees on Compassionate
Grounds, 2022 - Clause 5 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 12, 14 to 16 -
Petitioner's husband, an employee of
respondent
Bank,
passed
away
on
17.11.2022 - His last drawn gross salary
was ₹1,18,800.14 - Claim of petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds,
declined
on
ground
that
compassionate appointment is allowed if
family's monthly income is less than 75%
of deceased employee's last drawn salary
- Clause 5 of said scheme outlines how
monthly family income is assessed to
determine
financial
status
after
employee's
death
-
Impugned
order
records family's income from all sources -
Calculated
income
exceeds
75%
of
deceased employee's last drawn salary,
indicating family was not in financial
distress - Petitioner was rightly found
ineligible for compassionate appointment
under applicable scheme. (Para 2, 3, 21,
25)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
89
23. The applicant is a complainant,
filed complaint against the petitioner and
while considering the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties such fact has been
considered and the writ petition has been
allowed giving liberty to the Disciplinary
Authority to take appropriate steps strictly
in accordance with law, to be more precise,
under Regulation 27 of the Regulations,
1966, if it is so needed, then there is no
need to allow this application.

24.
Accordingly,
the
instant
application is rejected.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 89
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 1680 of 2025

Chanchal Sonkar ...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman, SBI & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Satish Chaturvedi

Civil Law - Scheme for Compassionate
Appointments or Payment of Ex Gratia
Financial
Relief
to
Dependents
of
Deceased Employees on Compassionate
Grounds, 2022 - Clause 5 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 12, 14 to 16 -
Petitioner's husband, an employee of
respondent
Bank,
passed
away
on
17.11.2022 - His last drawn gross salary
was ₹1,18,800.14 - Claim of petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds,
declined
on
ground
that
compassionate appointment is allowed if
family's monthly income is less than 75%
of deceased employee's last drawn salary
- Clause 5 of said scheme outlines how
monthly family income is assessed to
determine
financial
status
after
employee's
death
-
Impugned
order
records family's income from all sources -
Calculated
income
exceeds
75%
of
deceased employee's last drawn salary,
indicating family was not in financial
distress - Petitioner was rightly found
ineligible for compassionate appointment
under applicable scheme. (Para 2, 3, 21,
25)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Har., 1994 (4)
SCC 138, (Para 2)

2.
Director of
Education
(Secondary)
Vs
Pushpendra Kumar, 1998 (5) SCC 192, (Para 8)

3. Roopam Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ A
No. 15512 of 2019, (Para 16)

4. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & anr. Vs
Somyashree, Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021,
(Para 7)

5. Ipsita Chakrabarti Vs St. of W. B., 2018 (2)
Cal LT 177 (HC)

6. Sri Bijon Mukherjee Vs The St. of W. B. &
ors., 2018 (3) Cal LT 136 (HC), (Para 26)

7. Ankita Saha & anr. Vs The St. of W.B. & ors.,
WPA No. 12287 of 2019 (Calcutta High Court)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the impugned order date
24.07.2023, the competent authority has
rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant
of appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The admitted facts of the case
are these. The husband of the petitioner
was an employee in the respondent Bank.
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
He died on 17.11.2022. The last drawn
gross
salary
of
the
deceased
was
1,18,800.14/-

3. By the impugned order dated
24.07.2023 the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds has been declined on the following
footing:

"7.3 Financial Condition of the
family:
 The family is indigent and
deserves immediate assistance for relief
from financial destitution. The following
guidelines should be taken into account for
determining
the
financial
condition/
eligibility for compassionate appointment
of dependents of the family:

Compassionate Appointment will
be sanctioned to the dependents of the
deceased/premature
retired
employees
where the monthly income of the family
will be less than 75% of the last drawn
gross salary."

4. Heard Sri Raghav Arora, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent.

5. Appointments to public posts,
government
services
and
to
various
instrumentalities of the State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India are governed and regulated by
comprehensive provisions contained in the
Constitution. The constitutional scheme
envisages an open recruitment and a
transparent
procedure
which
enables
maximum participation from all the eligible
segments of the citizenry at large. The final
appointments are made after a fair selection
based on competitive merit. While making
the said appointments the reservation
policy or affirmative action under the
Constitution
for
representation
and
empowerment
of
backward
classes,
SCs/STs and other sections of the society
identified as per law have to be duly
adhered
to.
The
recruitment
and
appointment to government services and
government undertakings were examined
by constitutional Courts in the context of
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. Holdings of the constitutional
Courts have irretrievably entrenched the
aforesaid
modes
and
procedures
for
appointments to posts in the government
and Article 12 instrumentalities in the body
of the constitutional law.

6.
The
compassionate
ground
appointments to the contrary are not made
through a transparent and public process of
recruitment after inviting the applications
from the open market. The appointments on
compassionate ground entail deviation
from regular processes of recruitment and
other relaxations as well. Appointments
under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974,
are
an
exception
to
the
aforesaid
constitutionally
mandated
scheme
for
appointments to posts in the government
and
in
government
undertakings.
Compassionate appointments emanate from
specific service rules holding the field and
rationalized by service law jurisprudence
evolved by Constitutional Courts.

7.
The
appointments
on
compassionate ground passed the test of
constitutional validity by a slender margin.
The
sole
justification
to
make
compassionate ground appointments is that
the dependants of the deceased employee
face unforeseen financial destitution after
the death of the latter and need urgent
succour. Compassionate appointments are
provided to the family to immediately tide
4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
91
over the sudden financial crisis so caused
by the death of the employee. This feature
alone constituted the kin of a deceased
employee into one class and on this sole
footing the rationale of compassionate
ground appointments was justified by
Constitutional Courts.

8. The sole purpose of grant of
appointment on compassionate ground is to
enable the family to tide over the
immediate financial crises resulting from
the death of the sole earning member of the
family.

9. The discussion has the benefit of
authorities in point.

10. Supreme Court in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana1
explained the purpose of compassionate in
following terms:

"2.The question relates to the
considerations which should guide while
giving appointment in public services on
compassionate ground. It appears that there
has been a good deal of obfuscation on the
issue. 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 nonmanual 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
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

11. A similar sentiment was echoed
by the Supreme Court in Director of
Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra
Kumar2 :

"8.The
object
underlying
a
provision for grant of compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the sudden
crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury
and without any means of livelihood. Out
of pure humanitarian consideration and
having regard to 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 for giving gainful
appointment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such
appointment. Such a provision makes a
departure from the general provisions
providing for appointment on the post by
following a particular procedure. Since
such a provision enables appointment being
made without following the said procedure,
it is in the nature of an exception to the
general provisions. An exception cannot
subsume the main provision to which it is
an exception and thereby nullify the main
provision by taking away completely the
right conferred by the main provision. Care
has, therefore, to be taken that a provision
for grant of compassionate employment,
which is in the nature of an exception to the
general
provisions,
does
not
unduly
interfere with the right of other persons
who are eligible for appointment to seek
employment against the post which would
have been available to them, but for the
provision
enabling
appointment
being
made on compassionate grounds of the
dependant of a deceased employee......."

12. This Court in Roopam Mishra
v. State of U.P. and 4 others3 held as
under:

"16.
The
purpose
of
compassionate appointments provides their
justification. The death of a bread winner
forces the family of the deceased into
penury. The immediacy of the financial
crisis creates the requirement for urgent
redressal. The concept of compassionate
appointments is created only to enable the
bereaved family to tide over the immediate
financial crisis".

13. The need to make appointments
on compassionate grounds in conformity
with the Rules governing the grant of such
appointments was emphasized by the
Supreme Court in the Director of
Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v.
Somyashree4 by summarizing the law as
follows:

 "7......(i)
that
the
compassionate
appointment
is
an
exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a
right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any
public post in the service of the State
has to be made on the basis of the
principle in accordance with Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv)
appointment
on
compassionate ground can be made
only on fulfilling the norms laid down
by
the
State's
policy
and/or
satisfaction of the eligibility criteria
as per the policy;
4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
93

(v) the norms prevailing on the
date of the consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of
claim for compassionate appointment."

14. Similarly, the necessity to
strictly
adhere
to
rules
relating
to
compassionate grounds was succinctly
summarized by the Calcutta High Court in
Ipsita Chakrabarti v. State of West
Bengal5. Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra)
upon consideration of holdings of various
Constitutional Courts held:

"(a)
Appointment
on
compassionate grounds is an exception
craved out to the general rule that
recruitment to public services is to be made
in a transparent and accountable manner
providing
opportunity
to
all
eligible
persons to compete and participate in the
selection process.

(b) The right of a dependent of an
employee
who
died
in
harness
for
compassionate appointment is based on the
scheme, executive instructions, rules etc.
framed by the employer and there is no
right to claim compassionate appointment
on any other ground apart from the above
scheme conferred by the employer.

(c)
Appointment
on
compassionate ground is given only for
meeting the immediate hardship which is
faced by the family by reason of the death
of the bread earner. When an appointment
is made on compassionate ground it should
be kept confined only to the purpose it
seems to achieve, the idea being not to
provide for endless compassion.

(d) Compassionate appointment
has to be exercised only in warranting
situations and circumstances existing in
granting appointment and guiding factors
should be financial condition of the
family."

15. Furthermore, the Calcutta High
Court in Sri Bijon Mukherjee v. The
State of West Bengal and others6again
stated what is by now the settled position of
law
that
the
appointments
on
compassionate ground must be made only
in confirmity with the specific rules
applicable to the employee :

"26. After observing the ratio and
the legal positions contended by the
Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
as well as the precedents examined above, I
am persuaded to opine that appointment on
compassionate grounds seeks to relieve the
immediate financial hardship faced by the
dependants of the deceased. It acts as an
exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution as the defendant are given
preferential appointment ahead of other
equally meritorious candidates similarly
placed and hence it cannot be claimed as a
right. With the object of appointment on
compassionate grounds in mind, it is
palpably clear to me that this appointment
must be done in accordance with the rules
for such appointment. The dependant
seeking such appointment must be eligible
for such consideration and facing financial
hardship to the extent delineated by the
rules."

16. Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra) and
Sri
Bijon
Mukherjee
(supra)
were
followed by the Calcutta High Court in
Ankita Saha and Anr. v. The State of
West Bengal and Ors7

17. The concept of compassionate
ground appointments is a welfare measure
taken by a model employer. However, there
is a caution. An overliberal interpretation of
the
right
to
the
appointments
on
compassionate
ground
will
open
a
floodgate of such appointments and turn
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
them into a veritable source of recruitment.
An unjustified generous approach in
compassionate
ground
which
is
not
consistent with the applicable service rules
will confer benefit to underserving and
ineligible candidates, and simultaneously
deny the rights and lawful claims of
eligible and meritorious candidates from
getting appointment to government posts.
The merit is not to be assumed from
parentage but has to be achieved through
open competition. Treating compassionate
ground appointments as an unconditional
and vested right and making it a source of
recruitment will shear the thin veil of
legality which protects such appointments
from the vice of unconstitutionality. The
very concept of compassionate ground will
then be exposed to the wrath of Articles 14,
15, 16 of the Constitution of India.

18. The purpose of grant of
compassionate ground appointments can be
subserved and their constitutionality can be
saved only by strict compliance of the rules
governing the grant of compassionate
ground appointments.

19.
The
preceding
discussion
discloses that determination of the financial
condition or the nature of financial crises
being faced by the family after the death of
employee is thus a mandatory pre condition
for appointment on compassionate grounds.

20. Financial penury has not been
defined
in
the
holdings
of
various
constitutional courts. The same has to be
examined in light of applicable provisions
of
law.
The
compassionate
ground
appointments are not intended to create a
windfall for the kin of the deceased. The
employer is only required to assess the
financial condition which keeps the kitchen
fire
burning.
Further
the
aforesaid
provisions are liable to be strictly adhered
to in light of the cases in point discussed
earlier.

21. The relevant rules which
govern and regulate the appointment on
compassionate grounds in the respondent
Bank are the Scheme for Compassionate
Appointments of Payment of Ex gratia
Financial Relief to dependants of deceased
employees on Compassionate Grounds,
2022. Clause 5 of the aforesaid scheme
provides for the manner of determination of
the monthly family income to determine
the financial status of the family of the
deceased after the death of the latter. The
provision being relevant is extracted
hereinunder:

 "5.1. Monthly Family Income:

The
application
for
Compassionate
Appointment/Ex-Gratia
financial relief shall be considered only if
the family is indigent and deserves
immediate assistance for relief from
financial destitution. The condition of the
family shall be held indigent only if the
monthly income of the family from all
the sources is

a) Less than 50% of the last
drawn Gross Salary of the deceased,
where the dependent family is survived
by only the spouse and/or one child.

b) Less than 60% of the last
drawn Gross Salary of the deceased, in all
other cases

If the total monthly income of
the family arrived at, is less than
50%/60% of the last drawn Gross salary
of
the
deceased
employee,
Compassionate Appointment or Ex-gratia
financial relief may be granted, subject to
fulfillment of other eligibility criteria as
detailed herein."
(emphasis supplied)
4 All. Avesh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko & Ors.
95
22. Clause 5 of the said scheme
provides for a sound and a rationale criteria
for determining the financial condition of
the family of the deceased and to make a
finding
on
eligibility
for
grant
of
compassionate appointment.

23.
This
exercise
has
been
undertaken by the Bank. The phrase
"monthly income of the family from all
the" sources includes financial benefits
given to the family of the deceased, the
family pension and assets from where
income can accrue. Total income of the
family as calculated by the bank in
accordance with Rule 5.1 is as under:

Name of the deceased

- Late Dharmendra Kumar
Name and relation of the eligible
dependant
for
compassionate
appointment
of
deceased
employee
 -
Smt.
Chanchal Sonkar
Computation of Monthly income
I. Monthly Income of the family
A. Terminal Benefits

 - 59,43,651/-
1. Provident Fund

-
28,37,574.00
2. Gratuity

-
12,88,350.00
3. Leave Encashment

- 9,50,401.20
4. NPS Scheme

-
NIL
Sub Total (A)

 -
50,76,325.12
B. Liability
Sub Total

-
50,76,325.12/-
C. Gross corpus available (A-B)

- 50,76,325.12/-
D. Investments (LIC/other polcies)

-1,04,42,704/-
E. Net corpus available (C+D)

 -1,55,19,029.12/-
F. Total monthly income of the
family from all sources
i. Monthly notional interest at the
Bank's
maximum
term
deposit
rate
applicable to public on 80% amount of the
net
corpus
available
(E)
@
6.10
(Applicable ROI) - 63,110.71/-
2. Family Pension

-
36445.00/-
G. Total monthly income of the
family (1+2+3+4) - 99,555.71/-
H. (i) Last drawn Gross salary of
Late
Dharmendra
Kumar(sic)
-
1,18,800.14/-
(ii) Last drawn Defence pension (if
applicable)

 - NA
Total of (I) + (ii)

 - 1,18,800.14/-
I. 75% of last drawn Gross salary

 - 89,100.10/-

24. The aforesaid chart appended to
the writ petition has not been disputed by
the petitioner.

25. The impugned order clearly
discloses the income of the family of the
deceased
from
various
sources
as
contemplated
in
Clause
5
of
the
compassionate ground scheme cited earlier.
The income of the family of the deceased
so calculated is more than 60% of the last
salary drawn by the deceased. In fact as per
the aforesaid calculations, the family
income of the petitioner is more than 75%
of the last salary drawn. The income of the
family so determined establishes that the
family does not face financial destitution as
a result of the death of the employee. The
respondents in the impugned order have
been thus correctly found that the petitioner
does not fulfil the criteria for grant of
compassionate ground appointment as per
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the provisions of the compassionate ground
appointment scheme applicable to the bank.

26. In wake of the preceding
discussion, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. The writ petition is liable
to be dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 96
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 1717 of 2000

Hanumant Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar, Anurag Srivastava, Illegible,
Ravindra Kumar Ravi, Som Kartik Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dr. L.P. Mishra

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Services Commission (Removal
of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 -
Clause 3 - Ad hoc appointment - Salary
payment - Vacancy for Assistant Teacher
(Hindi), L.T. Grade arose due to promotion
of one teacher - As per Regulations under
Act, 1921, required qualification is B.A.
with Hindi and Sanskrit - Petitioner holds
B.A. in Hindi, Economics, and Social
Science, and lacks mandatory qualification
of Sanskrit - Petitioner is not eligible for
said post - As per Serial No. 55 of
Appendix-A
of
relevant
Regulations,
essential qualification for post of Assistant
Teacher (Social Science), L.T. Grade, was
Bachelor's Degree (B.A.) with at least two
subjects out of four namely History,
Political
Science,
Geography
and
Economics - Petitioner has pursued B.A.
with only one subject i.e Economics from
prescribed list - Thus petitioner does not
fulfill
minimum
eligibility
criteria
for
appointment
-
Therefore,
action
of
authorities in not permitting petitioner to
continue or in withholding salary cannot
be said to suffer from any legal infirmity.
(Para 8, 9)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for the following reliefs:-

"1) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
thereby commanding the opposite party
no.3 to make the payment of salary to the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher
in L.T. Grade on the basis of ad hoc
appointment of the petitioner in L.T. Grade
as per the provisions of Second Removal of
Difficulties (Order), 1981 i.e. with effect
from 1.9.97

11) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
thereby commanding the opposite party
no.3 to accord his sanction/approval for
payment of salary to the petitioner as per
provisions of sub-clause (iii) and Clause
(iv) respectively of Clause-3 of the Removal
of Difficulties (Second) Order 1981 and to
pay the same in the form of his current
salary as and when the same falls due
during the pendency and final disposal of
present writ petition

III) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
thereby directing the opposite parties to
dispose of the petitioner's representation as
contained in Annexure-11 to the writ
petition."

2. The facts giving rise to the
present writ petition are that Bappa
Srinarain
Vocational
Inter
College,