# Chandan Kumar v. The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 827
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 9365 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandan-kumar-v-the-chairman-principal-officer-state-49422
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
S.B.I.-
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Public
Sector Banks - Applicability - SBI Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional Circumstances - Ex Gratia
Payment - Eligibility Criteria
Petitioner, son of a deceased S.B.I.employee,
sought compassionate appointment under the
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974, following his father's death in harness on
17.10.2016. The Bank rejected the claim, citing
the absence of a compassionate appointment
scheme and offering ex gratia payment instead,
as per the SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia
Lumpsum Amount in Lieu of Compassionate
Appointment. The petitioner challenged the
rejection, relying on the Government of India's
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in
Public Sector Banks (effective 05.08.2014).

Held: The Government of India's Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector
Banks
(2014)
is
a
model
scheme,
not
mandatorily applicable to public sector banks
unless adopted by their Board of Directors. The
S.B.I.adopted
it
with
modifications,
implementing
the
SBI
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances and the SBI Scheme for Payment
of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount, both effective
from 05.08.2014. Compassionate appointment is
limited to exceptional cases, i.e., death during
official duty due to violence, terrorism, robbery,
or dacoity, or death within five years of
appointment or before age 30, leaving a
dependent spouse and/or minor children. The
petitioner's case did not meet these criteria, as
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his father's death did not occur under such
circumstances. The Bank's policy prioritizes ex
gratia
payment
over
compassionate
appointment in non-exceptional cases. The
rejection of the petitioner's claim was upheld, as
it aligned with the Bank's policy and the decision
in Sajal Khanna Vs S.B.I.(2021:AHC:114740).
The principle in Canara Bank Vs M. Mahesh
Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412, that compassionate
appointment is governed by the scheme in force
at the time of death, further supported the
dismissal. The decision in Smt. Neelam Singh Vs
U.O.I. (2020) 12 ADJ 227 was distinguished as
sub silentio, as it did not address the modified
adoption of the 2014 Scheme by the St. Bank of
India. (Paras 11-25)

B.
Judicial
Review
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Scope of Interference
Courts cannot compel an employer to grant
compassionate appointment contrary to the
applicable policy. The scope of judicial review is
limited to ensuring compliance with the policy in
force at the time of the employee's death. (Para
21)

Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Para 26-27)

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

11 All. Chandan Kumar Vs. The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State Bank of India, New Delhi
 & Ors.
827
minors of the family are required to have a
predominating interest and not a no
objection certificate by other members of
family in favour of a single member of the
family.

17. In view of aforesaid discussion,
the impugned order clearly has been passed
against the provisions of Rule 7 of the
Rules of 1994 as is therefore vitiated.
Accordingly, the order dated 22.05.2023 in
Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023 is quashed by
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
A further writ in the nature of mandamus is
issued directing the opposite party no. 2 i.e.
Engineer-in-Chief (Project/Planning), Public
Works Department, Lucknow to re-consider the
matter and pass fresh orders pertaining to claims
of Smt. Neelam Devi and Sri Rajnikant strictly in
accordance with Rule 7 of the Rule 1994 and in
the light of judgments referred to hereinabove
particularly adverting to which of the two would
face greater financial hardship and grant of
compassionate appointment to which of the two
would serve the greater interest of the family and
the minors.

18. Such a decision shall be taken by
opposite party no. 2 within a period of eight
weeks from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him.

19. Resultantly, the Writ-A No. 4493
of 2023 is allowed and Writ-A No. 7492 of
2023 is disposed of.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 827
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 9365 of 2023
Chandan Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State
Bank of India, New Delhi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kanhaiya Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
S.B.I.-
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Public
Sector Banks - Applicability - SBI Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional Circumstances - Ex Gratia
Payment - Eligibility Criteria
Petitioner, son of a deceased S.B.I.employee,
sought compassionate appointment under the
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974, following his father's death in harness on
17.10.2016. The Bank rejected the claim, citing
the absence of a compassionate appointment
scheme and offering ex gratia payment instead,
as per the SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia
Lumpsum Amount in Lieu of Compassionate
Appointment. The petitioner challenged the
rejection, relying on the Government of India's
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in
Public Sector Banks (effective 05.08.2014).

Held: The Government of India's Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector
Banks
(2014)
is
a
model
scheme,
not
mandatorily applicable to public sector banks
unless adopted by their Board of Directors. The
S.B.I.adopted
it
with
modifications,
implementing
the
SBI
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances and the SBI Scheme for Payment
of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount, both effective
from 05.08.2014. Compassionate appointment is
limited to exceptional cases, i.e., death during
official duty due to violence, terrorism, robbery,
or dacoity, or death within five years of
appointment or before age 30, leaving a
dependent spouse and/or minor children. The
petitioner's case did not meet these criteria, as
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his father's death did not occur under such
circumstances. The Bank's policy prioritizes ex
gratia
payment
over
compassionate
appointment in non-exceptional cases. The
rejection of the petitioner's claim was upheld, as
it aligned with the Bank's policy and the decision
in Sajal Khanna Vs S.B.I.(2021:AHC:114740).
The principle in Canara Bank Vs M. Mahesh
Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412, that compassionate
appointment is governed by the scheme in force
at the time of death, further supported the
dismissal. The decision in Smt. Neelam Singh Vs
U.O.I. (2020) 12 ADJ 227 was distinguished as
sub silentio, as it did not address the modified
adoption of the 2014 Scheme by the St. Bank of
India. (Paras 11-25)

B.
Judicial
Review
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Scope of Interference
Courts cannot compel an employer to grant
compassionate appointment contrary to the
applicable policy. The scope of judicial review is
limited to ensuring compliance with the policy in
force at the time of the employee's death. (Para
21)

Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Para 26-27)

Case Law Discussed:

1. Sajal Khanna Vs S.B.I.(2021:AHC:114740)

2. Canara Bank Vs M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7
SCC 412

3. Smt. Neelam Singh Vs U.O.I. (2020) 12 ADJ
227

4.
Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathan
Vs
Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. A rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, learned
Counsel for the petitioner in Court
today. It is taken on record. Let it be
numbered by the office.

2. Parties have exchanged affidavits.

3. Admit.

4. Heard forthwith.

5. Heard Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish
Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.

6. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner laying a challenge to the
order dated 'nil', annexed as Annexure
No.10 to the writ petition, rejecting his
claim for compassionate appointment. The
compassionate
appointment
has
been
claimed by the petitioner on account of his
father's death in harness.

7. The petitioner's father, the late
Gopal Chandra was a permanent employee
of the State Bank of India, who was posted
as a Sweeper in the office of the Branch
Manager, N.R.I. (Computerized Branch),
State Bank of India, Main Branch,
Kutchehari Road, Prayagraj. He died in
harness on 17.10.2016. The late Gopal
Chandra left behind him his widow, Smt.
Sumitra Devi, four daughters, to wit, Smt.
Reena Devi, Smt. Renu Devi, Smt. Ruchi
Devi, Km. Shilu and a son, Chandan
Kumar, the petitioner here. There is no
issue about the fact that the petitioner's
father died in harness or that he was a
permanent employee of the State Bank of
India or that he has left behind family
members as above described. It is also not
in dispute that the petitioner is the deceased
employee's son. The petitioner has asserted
that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste,
called 'Hela'. The said fact has also not
been denied by the respondents.

8. The petitioner passed his High
School
in
the
year
2013
and
the
Intermediate Examination in the year 2016,
11 All. Chandan Kumar Vs. The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State Bank of India, New Delhi
 & Ors.
829
both conducted by the Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, U.P.
After the petitioner's father's demise, the
petitioner's mother moved an application
before
the
Branch
Manager,
N.R.I.
(Computerized Branch), State Bank of
India, Main Branch, Kutchehari Road,
Prayagraj,
seeking
compassionate
appointment for her son under the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Dying in
Harness Rules'). In response, the petitioner
received a memo dated 10.02.2017 from
the Branch Manager, saying that there is no
scheme for compassionate appointment in
the Bank. The Branch Manager, however,
conveyed that they had introduced a new
scheme
in
place
of
compassionate
appointment, providing for the payment of
lump-sum ex gratia in cases of death in
harness.
Thus,
the
Branch
Manager
declined the petitioner's claim. A similar
memo dated 28.03.2017 was issued by the
Regional Manager, State Bank of India,
Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj,
conveying the Bank's inability to appoint
the petitioner in the absence of a scheme
for
compassionate
appointment.
The
petitioner's mother was again apprised
about the substitute for compassionate
appointment, to wit, ex gratia payment in
lump-sum.

9. The petitioner instituted a writ
petition, titled as Chandan Kumar v. The
Chairman Principal Officer and others,
Neutral Citation No. - 2022:AHC:80411,
seeking a direction to the respondents to
consider
his
case
for
compassionate
appointment.
The
said
petition
was
disposed of by this Court in terms of an
order dated 25.05.2022, directing the
respondent Bank to consider and decide the
petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment strictly in accordance with law
within a period of three months of the date
of production of a certified copy of that
order. It is in compliance with the said
order that the Deputy General manager (B
& O), State Bank of India, Administrative
Office, Prayagraj has passed the order
impugned, rejecting the petitioner's claim.

10. Aggrieved, the petitioner has
instituted the present writ petition.

11. The contention of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner is that after
introduction
of
the
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment
dated
05.08.2014 approved by the Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, which is
applicable
to
Banks,
including
the
respondent Bank, it cannot be said that the
petitioner is not entitled to a consideration
for compassionate appointment. It is argued
that the petitioner is eligible to be
appointed under the scheme of the
Government of India, which is called
'Scheme for Compassionate Appointment
in Public Sector Banks'. The said Scheme
has been enforced w.e.f. 05.08.2014 vide
Ministry of Finance D.O.F. No.18/2/2013IR dated 07.08.2014.

12. Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned
Counsel for the Bank, on the other hand,
has resisted the petition, saying that the
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in
Public Sector Banks introduced by the
Government of India w.e.f. 07.08.2014,
does not apply by its own force to the
establishment of any Public Sector Bank,
including the respondent Bank. It is in the
nature of a proposal by the Government of
India to revise the existing policy relating
to compassionate appointment. It was left
to the Banks to examine the scheme, accept
it as such or with modifications, all to be
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
done with the approval of the Board of
Directors of the Banks concerned. It is
argued that the State Bank of India has
adopted the proposed scheme by the
Government of India, modifying it in terms
of what is called, 'SBI Scheme for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional Circumstances'. The Bank has
also introduced the alternative scheme
called, 'SBI Scheme for Payment of ExGratia Lumpsum Amount in Lieu of
Compassionate Appointment'. Both the
Schemes, in accordance with the directions
of the Government of India, have become
effective in the State Bank of India w.e.f.
05.08.2014. It is pointed out that a look at
the Schemes would show that after
acceptance of the Government of India's
proposal, the policy of the State Bank of
India given expression through the two
Schemes, is not much different than what it
earlier was. The two Schemes, above
referred, deal with the contingency of an
employee dying in harness and the resultant
need to bail out his family from the ensuing
economic crisis. The rule is payment of ex
gratia lump sum in lieu of compassionate
appointment, and the exception, to provide
compassionate appointment, limited to the
extraordinary categories envisaged under
the 'SBI Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances'.

13. It is emphasized by the learned
Counsel for the Bank that the Government
of India's Scheme for compassionate
appointment does not apply on its own
terms, but in the form and on terms
accepted by individual Public Sector
Banks. The petitioner's case is not covered
by the 'SBI Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances' and has been rejected for
the said reason. The learned Counsel has
invited the Court's attention to those
circumstances
where
compassionate
appointment
can
be
offered
to
the
dependants of a Bank employee dying in
harness, which he says, are not attracted to
the petitioner's case.

14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, what this Court finds is that
there is no cavil about the fact that the
petitioner's
father
was
a
permanent
employee of the Bank, who died in harness
on 17.10.2016. He died after the 'SBI
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in
Exceptional Circumstances' had come into
force in the establishment of the respondent
Bank.

15. On perusing the material available
on record, it appears that prior to the 'SBI
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in
Exceptional
Circumstances',
the
respondent Bank had two Schemes to
extend support to the members of an
employee dying in harness. These were the
SBI
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances
and the SBI Scheme for Payment of ExGratia Lumpsum Amount in Lieu of
Compassionate Appointment. Therefore,
the respondent Bank was always following
a
policy
of
offering
compassionate
appointment in exceptional cases. It was
upon the representation of the Indian
Banks' Association carried in their
letters
dated
22.04.2014
and
13.06.2014
for
a
revision
of
compassionate appointment schemes
in Public Sector Banks that the
Government of India decided to
frame a scheme for compassionate
appointment in Public Sector Banks
w.e.f. 05.08.2014 vide a letter of the
Ministry of Finance bearing D.O.F.
No.18/2/2013-IR dated 07.08.2014.
11 All. Chandan Kumar Vs. The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State Bank of India, New Delhi
 & Ors.
831

16. A look at the Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in Public
Sector Banks framed by the Government of
India, together with the contents of the
letter dated 07.08.2014 issued by the
Ministry of Finance, leaves this Court in no
manner of doubt that the Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in Public
Sector Banks was a proposal to the Banks
to formulate their schemes on those lines
with all modifications they would desire by
placing the Government Scheme before the
Board of Directors of the respective Banks.
In short, the Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment in Public Sector Banks
was a model. It could be adopted as
such or with modifications to it. It
was all left to the Board of Directors
of the Banks concerned to decide
upon. This fact is evident from the
contents of the demi official letter
dated
07.08.2014,
which
was
addressed
by
a
Director
in
the
Ministry of Finance, Department of
Financial Services, New Delhi to the
Chairman, Indian Banks' Association.
The contents of the letter, which is on
record as Annexure No.1 to the
counter affidavit, read:

"Kindly refer to IBA's letters
No. HR&IR/KC/Govt/532/ 9274 dated
22.4.2014 and 13.6.2014 regarding
IBA's
proposal
for
revising
the
Compassionate Appointment Scheme
in Public Sector Banks (PSBs). The
proposal has been examined in this
Department and it is decided to
convey
the
approval
of
the
Government on the proposal of IBA as
follows:

i) To open the Compassionate
Appointment in PSBs on the lines of
Central Government;

ii) Discontinuing the provision of
ex-gratia
in
lieu
of
Compassionate
Appointment in PSBs."

2. Accordingly, IBA is also
requested to take appropriate action to
circulate the revised Scheme to all PSBS
for adoption with the approval of their
respective Boards. The scheme shall be
applicable from 5.8.2014.

3. This issues with the approval
of Hon'ble Finance Minister."

17. The Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment in Public Sector Banks
proposed by the Government of India
would have given a very broad right for
consideration
to
the
dependants
of
employees dying in harness, but that would
happen only if the Government Scheme
were adopted as such. It appears that the
respondent Bank were not inclined to give
up their policy providing rehabilitative aid
to the members of an employee dying in
harness in the manner they did earlier, to
wit, as a rule by payment of ex gratia lump
sum, if the family were in financial
distress;
and,
in
exceptional
cases,
according to the Bank's specified policy. It
was in this view of the matter that an Under
Secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry
of
Finance,
Department
of
Financial Services, New Delhi, addressed a
memo dated 5th December, 2014 to the
Chairman, India Banks' Association. The
relevant part of the memo dated 5th
December, 2014 as aforesaid reads:

"I am directed to refer to this
Department's letter of even number dated
7th August, 2014 on the subject cited above
and to say that State Bank of India has now
approached the Government proposing for
the need to continue the earlier provisions
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of
the
scheme
i.e.
compassionate
appointment
in
exceptional
cases
or
payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in
lieu of compassionate appointments.

2. The matter has been examined
in this Department and it has now been
decided that all Public Sector Banks can
have both the options i.e. compassionate
appointment or payment of lumpsum
exgratia amount. However, any of these
two options can be used only when the
other
conditions
of
compassionate
appointment are met.

3. This has the approval of
Finance Minister.

18. The proposal was then placed
before the Executive Committee of the
Central Board of the respondent Bank
by the Deputy Managing Director &
Corporate Development Officer, State
Bank of India on 10.12.2014 carrying
a proposal in the following terms:

"5. The Executive Committee
of the Central Board is requested to
approve following proposals:

(I) Continuation of Scheme
for Compassionate Appointment in
Exceptional Cases and Scheme for
payment
of
Ex-gratia
lumpsum
amount in lieu of compassionate
appointment, both duly modified, as
proposed in para 3(A), 3(B) and 3 (C)
herein
above
and
detailed
in
Annexure-I.

(II)
Authorization
to
Dy.
Managing
Director
&
Corporate
Development
Officer
to
issue
clarification on various provisions
under the schemes."

19. The matter was placed before the
Directors
of
the
respondent
Bank
constituting the Executive Committee,
which was approved by the Central Board
of the Bank on 23.12.2014. The proposal
that was placed before the Executive
Committee of the Bank Board reads:

"C-CDO-3 (1) SBI Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in exceptional
circumstances (II) SBI Scheme for payment
of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of
Compassionate Appointment

SUBMITTED a Memorandum
dated the 10th December 2014 by the
Deputy Managing Director & Corporate
Development Officer, recommending that,
for the reasons and on the terms stated
therein, approval be accorded for:

i. continuation of Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in exceptional
cases and Scheme for payment of ex-gratia
lumpsum amount in lieu of Compassionate
Appointment, both duly modified, as
proposed in para 3 of the Memorandum and
detailed in Annexure-I thereto; and

ii. authorising Dy. Managing
Director & CDO to issue clarification on
various provisions under the Schemes,

as detailed in the Memorandum
and annexures thereto.

Copies of the Memorandum and
enclosures had been circulated to the
Directors on the Executive Committee.

Approved"

20.

The
'SBI
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances',
therefore,
11 All. Chandan Kumar Vs. The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State Bank of India, New Delhi
 & Ors.
833
provides for eligibility to a consideration
for appointment on compassionate grounds
in the following cases alone:

"(i)
Employee
dying
while
performing official duty, as a result of
violence terrorism, robbery or dacoity;or

(ii) Employee dying within five
years of first appointment or before
reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is
latter, leaving a dependent spouse and /or
minor children."

21. In all other cases, if the family are
found
deserving
and
entitled
to
compassionate appointment, ex gratia lump
sum payment is to be made in lieu of
compassionate appointment. It is precisely
drawing on the terms of the 'SBI Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances'
that
the
petitioner's
case
for
compassionate
appointment has been rejected by the Bank.
Admittedly, the petitioner's father did not
die while performing official duty, as a
result of violence, terrorism, robbery or
dacoity, or within five years of his first
appointment before reaching the age of
30, whichever was later, and leaving
behind a dependant spouse and/ or
minor children. He did leave behind
dependants in the entitled category, but
does not fulfil the other criteria under
the 'SBI Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances'
to
be
eligible
for
appointment.
In
this
connection,
reference may be made to the decision
of this Court in Sajal Khanna v. State
Bank of India through its Chairman,
Mumbai and others, Neutral Citation
No. - 2021:AHC:114740. In Sajal
Khanna (supra), it has been observed
by Vivek Agarwal, J.:

"Therefore, once an option was
given by the Ministry of Finance to the
Indian
Banks'
Association
and
in
consonance of said D.O., State Bank of
India has prepared a memorandum and
that memorandum in regard to provisions
in lieu of it, payment of ex-gratia has been
approved by the Directors of the Executive
Committee, then this Court is not required
to travel beyond the said memorandum
because law as has been laid down in case
of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and
others vs. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8
SCC 148, it is settled that Courts, while
considering
a
matter
for
grant
of
compassionate
appointment,
are
only
required to look into the policy, which was
in vogue at the time of consideration of the
application and nothing more or less, as an
employer cannot be compelled to make
compassionate appointment contrary to the
policy, therefore, when examined in the
light of the memorandum prepared by the
State Bank of India and approved by its
Executive Committee, then it cannot be said
that petitioner's case has not been dealt
with
in
consonance
of
the
said
memorandum and impugned order dated
18.6.2018, being in consonance with the
said memorandum cannot be faulted with."

22. Here, note may be taken of two
decisions of the Supreme Court, on which
learned Counsel for the petitioner placed
emphatic reliance. He has particularly
placed reliance upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Canara Bank and
another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7
SCC 412. Now, this Court does not find
anything about the principles laid down in
M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) by their
Lordships that may have direct or decisive
bearing on the issue involved here. The
issue in M. Mahesh Kumar was that the
deceased, a clerk with the Canara Bank,
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whose
dependants
had
claimed
compassionate
appointment,
died
in
harness on 10.10.1998. At that time, a
dying in harness scheme was in force, that
provided consideration for compassinate
appointment to the dependants of an
employee.
The
claim made
by
the
dependants remained pending for a long
time and in the meantime, the dying in
harness scheme, that was issued vide
Circular No.154 of 1993 e.e.f. 08.05.1993,
was replaced with a different scheme dated
14.02.2005 in terms of the Head Office
Circular No.35 of 2005. The scheme for
compassionate appointment was scrapped
and in lieu thereof a scheme for ex gratia
payment introduced. It was in the context
of these facts that the issue arose if the
rights of the applicant for compassionate
appointment would be governed by the
Scheme of 2005 that provides for ex gratia
payment
in
lump
sum,
but
not
compassionate appointment, or the one that
came in force in the year 1993, making
provision for compassionate appointment.
It was in that context that their Lordships of
the Supreme Court held in M. Mahesh
Kumar:

"12. 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 compassionate appointment
is applicable to the respondent.

13. The appellant Bank has
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in Jaspal Kaur case [(2007) 9 SCC
571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578] to contend
that the respondent's case cannot be
considered on the basis of "Dying in
Harness Scheme 1993" when the new 2005
Scheme providing for ex gratia payment
had been put in place.

14. In Jaspal Kaur case [(2007) 9
SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578] ,
Sukhbir Inder Singh employee of State
Bank of India, Record Assistant (Cash and
Accounts) passed away on 1-8-1999. The
widow of the employee applied for
compassionate appointment in State Bank
of India on 5-2-2000. On 7-1-2002, the
competent authority of the Bank rejected
the application of Jaspal Kaur in view of
the Scheme vis-à-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 had directed to consider
the case of Jaspal Kaur by applying the
Scheme formulated on 4-8-2005 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 on the basis of
a scheme that was put in place much
after the dispute.

15. By perusal of the judgment in
Jaspal Kaur case [(2007) 9 SCC 571 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578] , 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 that came into force much after the
claim."

23. It is, therefore, apparent that the
decision of their Lordships in M. Mahesh
Kumar can be of little assistance to the
petitioner. Rather, it reiterates the principle
that compassionate appointment has to be
considered in accordance with the relevant
rules in force on the date of death of the
deceased. The principle that is also
discernible
is
that
the
right
to
compassionate appointment is not an
inherent right but flows from the scheme or
11 All. Vibhushit Singh Vs. N.T.P.C. Ltd. & Ors.
835
rules applicable at the relevant point of
time to the employer's establishment.

24. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the
decision of a learned Singal Judge of this
Court in Smt. Neelam Singh and another
v. Union of India through Ministry of
Finance and others, 2020 (12) ADJ 227.
He has particularly drawn the Court's
attention to the following remarks in
Neelam Singh (supra):

"13. It is also pertinent to note
that 2005 Scheme provides only for
exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate
appointment, which stands superseded by
the Scheme of 2014 which has revived the
scheme
providing
for
compassionate
appointment. Thus, I find that after policy
decision dated 05.04.2014 taken by Bank
of India in respect of compassionate
appointment, the case of the petitioners can
be considered in light of the letter dated
05.04.2014 issued by Government of
India."

25. The report of the decision in Smt.
Neelam Singh does not at all show that it
was brought to the notice of the Court that
the
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment in Public Sector Banks
proposed by the Government of India to be
adopted in each Bank was in fact a model
scheme and that in the State Bank of India,
it was accepted by the Board of Directors,
subject to modifications and adhering to the
system of two Schemes, one offering
compassionate appointment in exceptional
circumstances and the other ex gratia lump
sum payment, where otherwise a case for
compassionate appointment was made out.
The decision in Smt. Neelam Singh,
therefore, must be held sub silentio on the
issue in hand. It is, therefore, of no
assistance to the petitioner either. Since, it
is an admitted case that the petitioner's
father is not covered by the exceptional
circumstances envisaged under the 'SBI
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in
Exceptional Circumstances', this Court
does not find any infirmity with the order
impugned.

26. In the result, this petition fails and
is dismissed.

27. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 835
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 9538 of 2023

Vibhushit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
N.T.P.C. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Mohammad Atif, Sri
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Naresh Chandra Nishad, Sri Hanuman
Prasad Dube, Sri Ravi Kant (Sr. Adv.)

A. Service Law - National Thermal Power
Corporation Service Rules - Rule 24.9 -
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1977 - Rule 26(2)(vi)(e) - Termination of
service by abandonment - Charge of
unauthorized absence - Study leave for
two
years
was
sanctioned
as
leave
without pay - Petitioner was unable to
complete the course successfully, though
he reported back to join before expiry of
leave - Effect - Instead of giving joining,
the respondent started to conduct enquiry