# Firoz Khan v. Bank of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 757
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-04
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 848 of 2019
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/firoz-khan-v-bank-of-india-ors-51475
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Financial
Condition
Assessment
-
Petitioner
sought
compassionate appointment after his father's
death, which was rejected by the Bank of India
- Held, under Para 17, Sub Para (iii) of the Bank
of
India
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment, the financial condition of the
deceased employee's family, including assets,
liabilities, and terminal benefits, must be
assessed - Family received Rs. 44,43,178/-
(after deducting liabilities of Rs. 5,97,000/-) and
a monthly pension of Rs. 24,718/-, which was
sufficient to avoid financial crisis - Rejection of
compassionate appointment upheld as the
family was not in a penurious condition. (Paras
3, 5, 8, 9, 17, 19)

B. Service Law - Bank of India Scheme -
Interpretation of Para 17 (iii) - The scheme
mandates a balanced and objective assessment
of the family's financial condition, considering
terminal benefits (e.g., gratuity, provident fund,
leave encashment) and liabilities - Held,
compassionate appointment cannot be rejected
solely on the ground of receiving welfare
scheme benefits, but the quantum of benefits
(Rs. 44,43,178/- and Rs. 24,718/- monthly
pension) justified denial, as the family could
meet financial liabilities without appointment -
No illegality found in the impugned order dated
15.11.2017. (Paras 4, 8, 18, 19)

C.
Service
Law
-
Precedents
on
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Judgments in *General Manager (D & PB)
Vs Kunti Tiwary*, *Punjab National Bank
Vs Ashwani Kumar Taneja*, *St. Bank of
India
Vs
Jaspal
Kaur*,
and
others
consistently hold that terminal benefits
and pension amounts can be considered
to assess financial hardship
- Held,
amounts comparable to or less than Rs.
44,43,178/- (terminal benefits) and Rs.
24,718/- (pension) in prior cases justified
denial of compassionate appointment -
Petitioner's
case
aligns
with
these
precedents,
and
no
interference
warranted. (Paras 6, 10-16, 17)
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition Dismissed - No Illegality in
Rejection of Compassionate Appointment.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Firoz Khan Vs. Bank of India & Ors.
757
viz-a-viz posts of other departments of the
State. Since claims which were potential in
nature got recognized vide notification
dated 30.6.2011, for the first time, the grant
of benefit of upgraded pay only from
30.6.2011 cannot said to be illegal or
arbitrary.

11. Potential claims since are
not based on any existing rights,
such
claims
would
require
determination first. It is only after
determination
of
such
potential
claim in appropriate proceedings that
the
benefits
found
due
can
be
extended. Ordinarily grant of such
benefits would be prospective.

12. It is not the case of the appellant
that their claim for upgraded scale stood
recognized from before nor is it their case
that they were similarly circumscribed as
the employees of the Central Government.
We, therefore, find no error in the judgment
of the learned Single Judge refusing to
interfere in the writ petition.

13. The special appeal lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 757
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ - A No. 848 of 2019

Firoz Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sharad Malviya, Sri Yogendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.V. Pandey

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Financial
Condition
Assessment
-
Petitioner
sought
compassionate appointment after his father's
death, which was rejected by the Bank of India
- Held, under Para 17, Sub Para (iii) of the Bank
of
India
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment, the financial condition of the
deceased employee's family, including assets,
liabilities, and terminal benefits, must be
assessed - Family received Rs. 44,43,178/-
(after deducting liabilities of Rs. 5,97,000/-) and
a monthly pension of Rs. 24,718/-, which was
sufficient to avoid financial crisis - Rejection of
compassionate appointment upheld as the
family was not in a penurious condition. (Paras
3, 5, 8, 9, 17, 19)

B. Service Law - Bank of India Scheme -
Interpretation of Para 17 (iii) - The scheme
mandates a balanced and objective assessment
of the family's financial condition, considering
terminal benefits (e.g., gratuity, provident fund,
leave encashment) and liabilities - Held,
compassionate appointment cannot be rejected
solely on the ground of receiving welfare
scheme benefits, but the quantum of benefits
(Rs. 44,43,178/- and Rs. 24,718/- monthly
pension) justified denial, as the family could
meet financial liabilities without appointment -
No illegality found in the impugned order dated
15.11.2017. (Paras 4, 8, 18, 19)

C.
Service
Law
-
Precedents
on
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Judgments in *General Manager (D & PB)
Vs Kunti Tiwary*, *Punjab National Bank
Vs Ashwani Kumar Taneja*, *St. Bank of
India
Vs
Jaspal
Kaur*,
and
others
consistently hold that terminal benefits
and pension amounts can be considered
to assess financial hardship
- Held,
amounts comparable to or less than Rs.
44,43,178/- (terminal benefits) and Rs.
24,718/- (pension) in prior cases justified
denial of compassionate appointment -
Petitioner's
case
aligns
with
these
precedents,
and
no
interference
warranted. (Paras 6, 10-16, 17)
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition Dismissed - No Illegality in
Rejection of Compassionate Appointment.

List of Cases cited:

1. General Manager (D & PB) & ors. Vs Kunti
Tiwary & anr., (2004) 7 SCC 271

2. Punjab National Bank & ors. Vs Ashwani
Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265

3. St. Bank of India Vs Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9
SCC 571

4. St. Bank of India Vs Ajay Kumar, Special
Appeal No. 14 of 2007

5. Punjab National Bank Vs Deepak Pandey,
Special Appeal No. 867 of 2006

6. Smt. Nanda Tambe Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ-A
No. 54592 of 2004

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri R.V. Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with
the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue, a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash the order dated 15.11.2017, which
was
communicated
on
24.11.2017,
rejecting the application of petitioner on
compassionate appointment.

(ii) Issue, a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent Bank to provide
employment
to
the
petitioner
on
compassionate
ground
as
per
his
qualification."

3. Brief facts of the case are that
father of petitioner was working as Branch
Manager at Mahoba Branch. During the
course of service, he died on 19.1.2017.
After his death, mother of petitioner has
received Rs.10,000,00/- as Gratuity Fund,
Rs. 15,160,00/- as Provident Fund, Rs.
6,24,178/-
as
leave
encashment,
Rs.
17,000,00/- against TDR and Rs. 2,000,00/-
from LIC insurance amounting to a sum of
Rs. 50,40,178/-. Father of petitioner had
liabilities to pay Rs. 5,97,000/- towards
bank. After deduction of the same, total
amount paid is Rs.44,43,178/-. Mother of
petitioner is also getting family pension of
Rs. 24,718/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in light of Para 17 of Sub
Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment, application
for appointment on compassionate ground
cannot be rejected on the ground that
family of employee has received the
benefits under the various welfare schemes,
therefore, order is bad and liable to be set
aside.

5. Per Contra, Sri R.V. Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
vehemently opposed the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of
the
Bank
of
India
Scheme
for
Compassionate Appointment clearly says
that while deciding the application liability
has to be taken into consideration. In the
present case, undisputedly, total liability
upon the father of petitioner was of
Rs.5,97,000/- towards bank, therefore, after
deduction of the same, apart from monthly
family pension of Rs.24,718/-, mother of
petitioner has received Rs. 44,43,178/-,
therefore, there is no illegality in denial of
compassionate appointment to petitioner.

6. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the judgments of
2 All. Firoz Khan Vs. Bank of India & Ors.
759
Apex Court as well as this Court in the
cases of General Manager (D & PB) and
others vs. Kunti Tiwary and another
(2004) 7 SCC 271, Punjab National Bank
and others Vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja
2004 (7) SCC 265, State Bank of India Vs.
Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, State
Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar (Special
Appeal No. 14 of 2007), Punjan National
Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Special Appeal
No. 867 of 2006) and Smt. Nanda Tambe
vs. Union of India and others passed in
Writ-A No. 54592 of 2004.

7. In rejoinder argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner could not dispute
the factual as well as legal submissions so
made by the learned counsel for the
respondents.

8. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments as well as record. The main
issue is before this Court that about the
interpretation of Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of
the
Bank
of
India
Scheme
for
Compassionate Appointment, which is
being quoted hereinbelow:-

"iii
An
application
for
compassionate
appointment
should,
however, not be rejected merely on the
ground that the family of the employee 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 etc."

9. From perusal of the same, it is
apparently clear that while considering the
application of petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground, it is required on the
part of Bank to consider the liability of
petitioner. Further, after deduction of the
same, mother of petitioner was paid
Rs.44,43,178/- alongwith family pension of
Rs.24,718/-.

10. The very same matter was came
up before the Apex Court as well as this
Court in the cases of General Manager (D
& PB) and others (Supra), Punjab
National Bank and others Supra), State
Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (Supra),
State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar
(Supra), Punjab National Bank Vs.
Deepak Pandey (Supra) and Smt. Nanda
Tambe (Supra).

11. Similar issue came up before this
Court for adjudication in the matter of
General Manager (D & PB) and others
(Supra). The employee Kunti Tiwary was
working in the State Bank of India and died
in-harness on 16.01.1998. Application for
compassionate appointment was made
when deceased's son was minor. He
attained majority on 25.02.2000. Thereafter
he applied for compassionate appointment.
Financial
condition
of
family
was
examined by Bank and it was found that
deceased employee's family was paid
Provident Fund of Rs.3,33,410/-, Gratuity
of Rs.1,73,987/- and Leave Encashment of
Rs. 1,01,344/-. The deceased employee had
an investment of Rs. 66,000/- in share of
State Bank of India, etc. Family was paid a
pension of Rs.5,583/- per month. The
application, therefore, was rejected on the
ground that possessed assets and monthly
income was such as not to hold family in
penury condition. The family also consisted
of a widow, two sons and a daughter.
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rejection of application was challenged in
Writ Court and a learned Single Judge
dismissed writ petition. In intra Court
appeal judgment of learned Single Judge
was set aside and direction was issued to
Bank to give compassionate appointment.
This order came to be challenged in
Supreme Court, who allowed appeal and
restored judgment of learned Single Judge.

12. Again similar issue came up
before this Court in the matter of Punjab
National Bank and others (Supra). Father
of Ashwani Kumar Taneja, a Class IV
employee, died in harness on 03.12.1999
leaving behind his mother, widow, two
sons and one daughter. Request for
compassionate appointment was declined
by Bank, whereagainst writ petition was
allowed by learned Single Judge of
Rajasthan High Court and Letters Patent
Appeal was dismissed by Division Bench.
The High Court held that for considering
application for compassionate appointment,
amount paid towards gratuity, provident
fund etc. cannot be looked into. The matter
went in appeal to Supreme Court and it
held that the said amount can be taken into
consideration and judgment of High Court
was reversed holding that benefit paid after
death can be considered for judging
financial hardship.

13. This issue was again adjudicated
in the matter of State Bank of India Vs.
Jaspal Kaur (Supra). One Sukhbir Inder
Singh, husband of Jaspal Kaur died in
harness on 01.08.1999 while working as
Record Assistant. An application for
compassionate appointment of widow was
rejected by Bank. In writ petition filed by
Jaspal Kaur, High Court directed Bank to
reconsider the application, which was again
declined. The matter again came to High
Court, which took a view that retiral
benefits of Rs.4,57,607/- paid to the family
as terminal benefits cannot be said to be a
sufficient amount to bring away family
from financial hardship. Supreme Court
found that family of deceased consisted of
a widow, two daughters and a son.
Terminal
benefits
were
paid
as
Rs.4,57,607/- and monthly pension was
Rs.2,055/- and held that in the above facts
and circumstances denial of compassionate
appointment on the ground that family was
not in penurious condition was justified.

14. Division Bench of this Court has
also considered the very same issue in the
matter of State Bank of India Vs. Ajay
Kumar (Supra) and Court found that
terminal benefits of Rs.3.79 lakhs, Rs.1
lakh from LIC policy and gross monthly
income of Rs.4,000/- justify denial of
compassionate appointment on the ground
that family is not in penurious condition.

15. In the matter of Punjab National
Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Supra), this
Court found that family pension of
Rs.4,807/- per month after death of
deceased
employee
justify
denial
of
compassionate appointment on the ground
that family is not in penurious condition.

16. In the matter of Smt. Nanda
Tambe (Supra), petitioner has received
terminal
benefits
of
Rs.2,38,975/-
alongwith family pension of Rs. 4,969/-
and further application was filed for
compassionate appointment which was
rejected by this Court vide order dated
28.3.2019 after considering the relevant
provisions as well as law laid down by the
Court.

17. In the present case, petitioner's
father died on 19.1.2017. The amount of
family pension payable to petitioner is Rs.
2 All. Rakesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
24,178/- per month and terminal benefit
paid to Rs. 44,43,178/-. The above amount
is such which has been considered in the cases
referred to above and denial of compassionate
appointment has been held valid.

18. This Court is also of the view that while
deciding the application for appointment on
compassionate ground, Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of
the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment has to be taken into consideration in
letter and spirit. It is to be seen as to whether
terminal benefits is sufficient to meet liabilities of
family or not. In case authority is satisfied that
without providing appointment on compassionate
ground, family would not be in position to meet
the financial crisis, only then appointment may be
given to family member subject to fulfillment of
required qualification and eligibility, etc.

19. So far as present case is concerned,
family of deceased employee has received
sufficient money alongwith family pension to
meet the financial liabilities, therefore, there
is no occasion for this Court to interfere with
the impugned order dated 15.11.2017.
Respondents have rightly rejected the
application for grant of compassionate
appointment.

20. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit
and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 761
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 907 of 2024

Rakesh Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri Adarsh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Regularization of Ad-hoc
Teacher - Procedural Fairness - Petitioner
challenged the rejection of his regularization
claim by the Regional Selection Committee,
which cited the conversion of a short-term
vacancy (1997) into a substantive vacancy
(2008) as the reason for denial - Held, the
Committee's order was based on incorrect facts,
as the vacancy arose due to the ad-hoc
promotion of another teacher, who was reverted
in 2003, and the cancellation of petitioner's
appointment in 2005 was quashed by the
Additional Director of Education in 2008 - The
Committee's failure to verify records or consult
relevant authorities rendered the order dated
29.12.2023 arbitrary and unsustainable - Matter
remitted for fresh consideration with directions
to verify records and involve the Committee of
Management and petitioner. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 7,
16, 17)

B. Service Law - Duty of Regional
Selection Committee - Due Diligence - The
Regional Selection Committee acted negligently
by not verifying critical documents, including the
order
dated
5.12.2008,
and
relied
on
contradictory facts - Held, such committees
must thoroughly examine records, verify facts
with the Committee of Management and
Director of Education, and provide reasoned
findings
on
vacancy
existence,
candidate
eligibility, and approval status - Casual or
cursory orders affecting teachers' careers,
especially those serving for decades, are
impermissible and may warrant reprimand -
Director of Education directed to ensure
committees adhere to these principles. (Paras 6,
7, 8, 13, 14, 15)

C. Service Law - Protection of Ad-hoc
Teachers - Supreme Court Precedents -
Relying on *Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs St. of
U.P.* and *Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B Vs Suresh
Raghunath Bhokare*, the court held that ad-hoc
teachers
serving
for
decades
cannot
be
terminated merely due to irregularities by the