# Dr. Indra Pratap Singh v. B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 232
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-18
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18309 of 2006
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-indra-pratap-singh-v-b-h-u-varanasi-ors-53106
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

4 All. Sarvesh Kumar Vs. General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr.
225
President has been found to be
perfectly justified by us for reasons that we
have elaborately indicated hereinabove.

26. In these circumstances, there
was absolutely no reason for the Inspector
to have revoked his order dated 27.06.2013,
granting
approval
to
the
petitioner's
appointment, which, in our opinion, must
be restored.

27. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 02.12.2014 passed by the
Inspector is hereby quashed and the order
dated 27.06.2013, granting approval to the
petitioner's appointment, restored. The
petitioner shall be entitled to salary
together
with
arrears
and
other
consequential
benefits,
which
the
respondents shall ensure within the time
period of two months of the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.

28. There shall be no order as to
costs.

29. Let the original record be
handed over to Mr. Ashish Tripathi,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Management of the Institution forthwith for
its onward and safe transmission to
respondent No. 5.

30. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Registrar/ Inspector,
Arbi, Farsi Madarsa Education Board, U.P.,
Lucknow, the District Minority Welfare
Officer, Azamgarh and the Manager,
Madarsa Al-Jamaiatul Islamia Mambaul
Maarif,
Village
Sumbhi,
Post
Gambheerban, District Azamgarh by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA.225
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 15751 of 2023

Sarvesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Punjab National Bank &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok Kumar Nigam, Rekha Singh, Satya
Niwas Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sanjai Singh

Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Financial destitution -
Family income threshold - Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in Banks -
Rule 8.1 - Monthly income exceeding
60% of notional gross salary (net of tax) -
Family
pension
and
interest
income
considered
-
No
vested
right
to
appointment
-
Appointment
only
if
indigent
condition
is
established
-
Petitioner's
family
not
in
penury
-
Determination in accordance with Scheme
upheld - Petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 5, 6
to 11, 16 to 23)

HELD:

Appointments to public posts, government
services and to various instrumentalities of the
St. 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
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. (Para 4)

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. Compassionate
appointments 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. (Para 5)

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
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
undeserving 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. (Para 15)

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. (Para 16)

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 and in the facts and
circumstances of each case. 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.
(Para 18)

The impugned order clearly discloses the
income of the family of the deceased from
various sources as contemplated in Clause 8 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. 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
the provisions of the compassionate ground
appointment scheme applicable to the bank.
(Para 23)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

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

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

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

4.Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & anr. Vs
Somyashree, Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021
4 All. Sarvesh Kumar Vs. General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr.
227
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)

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 dated
21.12.2022, the competent authority has
rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant
of appointment on compassionate ground.

2. By the impugned order dated
21.12.2022 the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds has been invalidated on the
following footing:

 "We are in receipt of letter dated
20.12.2022 from Head Office vide which it
has been informed that the proposal was
placed before the Competent Authority
who has not acceded to the same as the
total monthly income of the family from all
sources is more than 60% of the notional
gross salary of the employee (net of
notional tax) as per relevant policy
guidelines.
Hence,
the
proposal
for
compassionate appointment to Shri Sarvesh
has been declined."

3. Heard Ashok Kumar Nigam,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent.

4. 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.

5.
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. Compassionate
appointments 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.

6.
The
appointments
on
compassionate ground passed the test of
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
constitutional validity by a slender margin.
The sole purpose of grant of appointment
on compassionate ground is to enable the
family to tide over the immediate financial
crises caused by the sudden 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.

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

8. 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
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
4 All. Sarvesh Kumar Vs. General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr.
229
family
engendered
by
the
erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned."

9. 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......."
10. 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".

11.
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;

(v) the norms prevailing on the
date
of
the
consideration
of
the
application should be the basis for
consideration
of
claim
for
compassionate appointment."
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. 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."

13. Furthermore, the Calcutta High
Court in Sri Bijon Mukherjee v. The
State of West Bengal and others6 again
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."

14. 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

15. 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
them into a veritable source of recruitment.
An unjustified generous approach in
compassionate
ground
which
is
not
consistent with the applicable service rules
4 All. Sarvesh Kumar Vs. General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr.
231
will confer benefit to undeserving 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.

16. 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.

17.
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 a mandatory prerequisite for
appointment on compassionate grounds.

18. 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 and in the facts and circumstances of
each case. 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.

19.
The
appointment
on
compassionate grounds in the respondent
Bank is governed by the "Scheme for
Compassionate
Appointment
to
a
dependent family member of a deceased
employee/employee retired on medical
grounds."
The
financial
destitution/financial penury faced by the
deceased employee's family is liable to be
determined in accordance with the criteria
laid down/relevant provisions of the said
scheme
for
compassionate
ground
appointment.
The
said
provision
is
extracted hereunder:

 "8. ELIGIBILITY

8.1 The family is indigent and
deserves immediate assistance for relief
from financial destitution.

To ensure this the compassionate
appointment is to be granted only if the
monthly income of the family from all
sources is less than 60% of the last drawn
monthly salary (net of taxes) of the
employee."
(emphasis supplied)

20. Clause 8 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 whether the family faces financial
destitution after the death of the employee
in harness, and eligibility for grant of
compassionate appointment.

21.
This
exercise
has
been
undertaken by the Bank. Total income of
the family as calculated by the bank in
accordance with Rule 8 is as under:

Dues Paid
Amount in
Rs
O/S Loans
with intt.
Amount in
Rs.
Provident
Fund/NPS
7,29,584
O/s
in
clean OD
15,000
Gratuity
7,18,107
Vehicle
Loan
2,16,500
Leave
Encashment
3,42,472
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Financial Aid
50,000

Total (A)
18,40,163
Total(B)
2,31,500
Net Terminal Dues Received From Bank (A-B) =
16,08,663

(c) Family pension: Rs. 15,087/-

(d) Amount received/likely to be
received from other sources/investments:
nil

(e) At the time of his death Late
Shri Prabhu Dayal, the monthly gross
salary received by the employee was Rs.
42808.92/-

Sl
No.
Details
Amounts in Rs
1
Total Amount of Terminal
dues
18,40,163
2
Total
Amount
of
Bank
Loans
2,31,500
3.
Net Amount of Terminal
Dues (1-2)
16,08,663
4.
Total
Amount
of
other
investments
4,33,000
5.
Loans
against
other
investments, if any
NIL
6.
Net
amount
of
other
investments
4,33,000
7.
Monthly interest on Net
Terminal dues (as at S. No.
3) @ 6.30% (Maximum GD
Intt. Of Bank applicable for
staff as on date of death of
employee)
8,445.48
8.
Monthly income from other
investments (as at S.No. 6)
@ 6.30%
2,273.25
9.
Amount of monthly Family
Pension
15,087.00
10.
Any other income (Monthly
income of Pratipal, Son)
5,000
11.
Total Monthly income (7 to
10)
30,805.73
12.
Notional Gross Monthly
Salary of Deceased for the
month of Aug 2020
42,808.92
13.
Amount of notional Income
Tax deducted
NIL
14.
Salary (Net of notional tax)
42,808.92
15.
Eligible Amount (60% of
14)
25,685.35
16.
Whether
eligible
for
compassionate appointment
?

No
22. The aforesaid chart as disclosed
in the counter affidavit has not been
disputed by the petitioner.

23. The impugned order clearly
discloses the income of the family of the
deceased
from
various
sources
as
contemplated
in
Clause
8
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. 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 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 232
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 18309 of 2006

Dr. Indra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Raunak Tiwari,
Sri B.P. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel
for
the
Respondents: