# Hasan Tanveer Iqbal v. State Bank of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 40517 of 2005
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hasan-tanveer-iqbal-v-state-bank-of-india-ors-45877
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Bank - Compassionate
Appointment
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and
cannot be claimed as a matter of course.
It is not an appointment by succession.
The objective of is to provide immediate succour
to the family of deceased employee who was
sole bread-earner and his sudden death in
harness has caused serious financial scarcity
and penury to the family. The purpose of
compassionate appointment is not for providing
a post against post. It is not reservation in
service by virtue of succession. (Para 11, 15,
40)

B. Constitution of India:- Article 14, 16 -
Factors to be examined and looked into to
determine the penurious condition of the
family
of
employee
-
Indigence
of
dependents of deceased employee is first
precondition to bring a case under scheme
of compassionate appointment. If element
of
indigence
and
need
to
provide
immediate
assistance
for
relief
from
financial deprivation, is taken out from
scheme of compassionate appointment, it
would be taken out to be a result in favour
of dependents of an employee who died
while in service, which would be directly
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in conflict with the idea of equality
guaranteed under Article 14 and 16.
 (Para 26)

In the present case there is no scheme
providing
automatic
employment
on
compassionate basis. Competent Authority has
to examine financial condition of the family,
availability of vacancy etc. to determine whether
applicant i.e. petitioner in this case is entitled
for compassionate appointment or not. It is an
admitted fact that petitioner's family i.e. family
of deceased employee is getting monthly
pension of Rs. 6533/-. One of the parent i.e.
widow of deceased employee is in service
getting salary of Rs. 5199/- per month. Besides,
family received total amount of Rs. 10.22 lacs as
terminal
benefits.
These
facts
stated
in
impugned order are not shown incorrect.
Collectively, thus it cannot be said that family is
in penurious condition and cannot survive if
compassionate appointment is not provided.
(Para 30, 31)

C. Supreme Court has held that benefit
paid after death (i.e. amount paid towards
gratuity, provident fund etc.) can be
considered for judging financial hardship
for
considering
application
for
compassionate appointment. (Para 33)

D. The compassionate appointment is not
a vested right which can be exercised at
any time in future. The compassionate
employment
cannot
be
claimed
and
offered after a lapse of time and after the
crisis is over. Once it is proved that in
spite of death of bread earner, the family
survived and substantial period is over,
there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to
normal rule of appointment and to show
favour to one at the cost of interests of
several others ignoring the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution - Petitioner's
father admittedly died on 23.06.2000. Now in
2020, after almost 20 years, it will not be in the
interest of justice to pass any order for
compassionate
appointment
to
petitioner
particularly considering the fact that in 2000
petitioner was 28 years of age, and now would
be
48
years
of
age.
The
object
of
compassionate
appointment
is
to
provide
immediate financial assistance to family to save
it from starvation but after 20 years when family
has already lived and met its expenses, there is
no
justification
to
provide
compassionate
appointment after such a long time. (Para 38,
40, 42, 51, 54)

Court held that in the present case, direction for
compassionate appointment, after almost two
decades would neither be legal nor just nor
constitutional and consistence with scheme of
such appointment. (Para 61)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,859 of 53,686. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39859 for what follows._

7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
253
law courts it is necessary that parties
should not make false or knowingly,
inaccurate statements or misrepresentation
and/or should not conceal material facts
with a design to gain some advantage or
benefit at the hands of the court, when a
court is considered as a place where truth
and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any
party attempts to pollute such a place by
adopting
recourse
to
make
misrepresentation
and
is
concealing
material facts it does so at its risk and cost.
Such party must be ready to take
consequences that follow on account of its
own making. At times lenient or liberal or
generous treatment by courts in dealing
with such matters are either mistaken or
lightly taken instead of learning proper
lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to
take serious view in such matters to ensure
expected
purity
and
grace
in
the
administration of justice".

14. In view of the aforesaid well
settled law, looking to the conduct of the
petitioner who is expected to be a
responsible government employee, even
having powers to look after finances on
behalf of State, and has been suspended on
charges
of
financial
irregularity
and
thereafter
approached
this
Court
by
attempting to manoeuvre facts/making false
statement of facts, I find it a fit case to
dismiss the petition with costs.

15. The writ petition is dismissed with
exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-. The cost is
to be deposited by the petitioner within a
period of one month from today before the
Senior
Registrar,
Lucknow
Bench,
Lucknow.

16. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2020)07ILR A253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 40517 of 2005

Hasan Tanveer Iqbal ...Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri Sumit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri Satish Kishore Kakkar

A. Service Law - Bank - Compassionate
Appointment
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and
cannot be claimed as a matter of course.
It is not an appointment by succession.
The objective of is to provide immediate succour
to the family of deceased employee who was
sole bread-earner and his sudden death in
harness has caused serious financial scarcity
and penury to the family. The purpose of
compassionate appointment is not for providing
a post against post. It is not reservation in
service by virtue of succession. (Para 11, 15,
40)

B. Constitution of India:- Article 14, 16 -
Factors to be examined and looked into to
determine the penurious condition of the
family
of
employee
-
Indigence
of
dependents of deceased employee is first
precondition to bring a case under scheme
of compassionate appointment. If element
of
indigence
and
need
to
provide
immediate
assistance
for
relief
from
financial deprivation, is taken out from
scheme of compassionate appointment, it
would be taken out to be a result in favour
of dependents of an employee who died
while in service, which would be directly
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in conflict with the idea of equality
guaranteed under Article 14 and 16.
 (Para 26)

In the present case there is no scheme
providing
automatic
employment
on
compassionate basis. Competent Authority has
to examine financial condition of the family,
availability of vacancy etc. to determine whether
applicant i.e. petitioner in this case is entitled
for compassionate appointment or not. It is an
admitted fact that petitioner's family i.e. family
of deceased employee is getting monthly
pension of Rs. 6533/-. One of the parent i.e.
widow of deceased employee is in service
getting salary of Rs. 5199/- per month. Besides,
family received total amount of Rs. 10.22 lacs as
terminal
benefits.
These
facts
stated
in
impugned order are not shown incorrect.
Collectively, thus it cannot be said that family is
in penurious condition and cannot survive if
compassionate appointment is not provided.
(Para 30, 31)

C. Supreme Court has held that benefit
paid after death (i.e. amount paid towards
gratuity, provident fund etc.) can be
considered for judging financial hardship
for
considering
application
for
compassionate appointment. (Para 33)

D. The compassionate appointment is not
a vested right which can be exercised at
any time in future. The compassionate
employment
cannot
be
claimed
and
offered after a lapse of time and after the
crisis is over. Once it is proved that in
spite of death of bread earner, the family
survived and substantial period is over,
there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to
normal rule of appointment and to show
favour to one at the cost of interests of
several others ignoring the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution - Petitioner's
father admittedly died on 23.06.2000. Now in
2020, after almost 20 years, it will not be in the
interest of justice to pass any order for
compassionate
appointment
to
petitioner
particularly considering the fact that in 2000
petitioner was 28 years of age, and now would
be
48
years
of
age.
The
object
of
compassionate
appointment
is
to
provide
immediate financial assistance to family to save
it from starvation but after 20 years when family
has already lived and met its expenses, there is
no
justification
to
provide
compassionate
appointment after such a long time. (Para 38,
40, 42, 51, 54)

Court held that in the present case, direction for
compassionate appointment, after almost two
decades would neither be legal nor just nor
constitutional and consistence with scheme of
such appointment. (Para 61)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent cited:

1. Vijay Ukarda Athor (Athawale) Vs St. of Mah.,
(2015) 3 SCC 399 (Para 8)

Precedent followed:

1. Canara Bank and another Vs M. Mahesh
Kumar . & ors., (2015) 7 SCC 412 (Para 8)

2. Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. & ors.,
(2009) 6 SCC 481 (Para 12, 55)

3. I.G. (Karmik) . & ors. Vs Prahalad Mani
Tripathi, 2008 (1) ESC 107 (SC) (Para 13)

4. Union of India (UOI) & anr. Vs B. Kishore,
2011 (4) SCALE 308 (Para 14)

5. St. of U.P. . & ors. Vs Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi,
(2013) 11 SCC 178, (Para 16)

6. Canara Bank . & ors. Vs M. Mahesh Kumar .
& ors., (2015) 7 SCC 412 (Para 17)

7. S.B.I. Vs Rajkumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 (Para
18, 24)

8. U.O.I. Vs R. Padmanabhan, (2003) 7 SCC 270
(Para 25)

9. U.O.I. and others Vs B. Kishore, (2011) 3 SCC
131 (Para 26)

10. MGB Gramin Bank Vs Chakrawarti Singh,
(2014) 13 SCC 583 (Para 27, 58)

11. General Manager (D & PB) . & ors.Vs Kunti
Tiwary & anr., (2004) 7 SCC 271 (Para 32)
7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
255
12. Punjab National Bank . & ors. Vs Ashwani
Kumar Taneja, 2004 (7) SCC 265 (Para 33)

13. S.B.I. Vs Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571
(Para 34)

14. S.B.I. Vs Ajay Kumar, (Special Appeal No. 14
of 2007), decided on 21.11.2017 (Para 35)

15. Punjab National Bank Vs Deepak Pandey,
(Special Appeal No. 867 of 2006), decided on
21.11.2013 (Para 36)

16. Union of India Vs Bhagwan, (1995) 6 SCC
436 (Para 42)

17. Haryana State Electricity Board Vs Naresh
Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23 (Para 42)

18. Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi
and anr. Vs Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak, (1997) 11
SCC 390 (Para 43)

19. St.of U.P. & ars. Vs Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC
2612 (Para 44)

20. Director of Education (Secondary) & anr. Vs
Pushpendra Kumar & ors., AIR (1998) SC 2230
(Para 45)

21. S. Mohan Vs Govt. of T.N. & anr., 1999 (I)
LLJ 539 (Para 46)

22. Sanjay Kumar Vs The St. of Bihar & Ors.,
AIR 2000 SC 2782 (Para 47)

23. Haryana State Electricity Board Vs Krishna
Devi, JT (2002) 3 SC 485; 2002 (10) SCC 246
(Para 48)

24. P.N.B.. & ors.Vs Ashwani Kumar Taneja, AIR
2004 SC 4155 (Para 49)

25. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation &
anr. Vs Nanak Chand & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 106
(Para 50)

26. State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs Sajad Ahmed,
AIR 2006 SC 2743, (Para 51)

27. I.G. (Karmik) . & ors.Vs Prahalad Mani
Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 (Para 52)

28. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs St. of Mah. & ors.,
(2008) 11 SCC 384 (Para 53)

29. M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Anil Badyakar
. & ors., (2009) 13 SCC 122; JT (2009) 6 SC 624
(Para 54)

30. Smt. Madhulika Pathak Vs State of U.P. &
ors., 2011 (3) ADJ 91 (Para 56)

31. Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs U.O.I. . & ors.,
(2011) 4 SCC 209, (Para 57)

32. U.O.I. Vs VSR. Tripathi, AIR 2019 SC 666
(Para 59)

33. State of Himanchal Pradesh . & ors. Vs
Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 (Para 60)

Petition
challenges
order
dated
04.05.2005, passed by Assistant General
Manager, State Bank of India, Region-1,
Zonal Office, Bareilly.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava,
Advocate,
for
petitioner.
None
has
appeared on behalf of respondent-Bank
despite the case having been called in
revise. Hence I proceed to hear and decide
this case ex parte, after hearing learned
counsel for petitioner.

2. The writ petition is directed
against the order dated 04.05.2005 passed
by Assistant General Manager, State
Bank of India, Region-1, Zonal Office,
Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'AGM,
SBI') rejecting application of petitioner
for compassionate appointment on the
ground that family of deceased employee
is not in penurious condition as per the
tests laid down in the "Scheme of
Compassionate Appointment applicable
to Bank" and, therefore, compassionate
appointment of petitioner would not be
justified.
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Facts in brief, giving rise to present
writ petition, are that petitioner's father
Tasveer Iqbal was working as Branch
Manager in State Bank of India (hereinafter
referred to as 'S.B.I.') and posted at State
Bank of India, Mundia Dhureki Branch,
Bisauli, District Budaun. He died in
harness on 23.06.2000 leaving following
heirs:

(i) Jameel Ahmad, aged about 80
years (father)

(ii) Smt. Bilkuis Fatima, aged
about 75 years (mother)

(iii) Smt. Kaneez Fatima, aged
about 41 years (widow)

(iv) Hasan Tanveer Iqbal, aged
about 28 years (son-petitioner)

(v) Hasan Jamal Iqbal, aged about
26 years (son)

4. At the time of death of petitioner's
father, petitioner and his brother, both were
married. Petitioner's mother Kaneez Fatima
was working as Teacher and receiving
salary of Rs. 5,199/- per month. Smt.
Kaneez Fatima was step mother of
petitioner.
She
received
amount
of
provident fund, leave encashment, gratuity,
etc. It is alleged that she did not provide
any financial assistance to petitioner or
grandparents. Petitioner's uncle Saghir
Iqbal was also bed ridden and his son was
paralytic and both were being looked after
by petitioner. Saghir Iqbal also died on
31.12.2004 and now his family is being
looked after by petitioner. Petitioner's real
mother Smt. Shama Tasveer Iqbal also died
during life time of petitioner's father, on
21.11.1996. Petitioner's brother had taken
loan under Self Employment Scheme but
incurred huge losses, closed down the shop
and amount of loan and interest due thereon
are deducted from the amount of gratuity
paid after death of petitioner's father.
Family pension is being paid but received
by Smt. Kaneez Fatima, step mother and
petitioner is not getting any financial
assistance from her. Petitioner's father has
taken loan of Rs. 2,20,000/- from one
Qumar Abbas and mortgaged his house.
This amount was repaid by petitioner so as
to redeem the house.

5. In these circumstances, petitioner
applied for compassionate appointment on
14.07.2000
under
the
"Scheme
For
Appointment On Compassionate Ground
For Dependent of Deceased Employee/
Employees
Retrenched
on
Medical
Grounds" applicable to S.B.I. The said
application was rejected by order dated
10.10.2000 passed by Branch Manager of
Bank.

6. This order was challenged by
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 48935 of
2000 which was allowed vide judgment
dated 01.02.2005 and Court found that
Branch Manager was not competent to
make appointment on Class-III post,
therefore,
compassionate
appointment
application could not have been considered
by Branch Manager and hence order of
rejection was passed by him without any
authority. This Court, therefore, directed
S.B.I.'s competent authority to consider
petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment and pass a fresh order.

7. Pursuant to judgment dated
01.02.2005, petitioner submitted a fresh
application on 22.02.2005. It has been
rejected by order dated 04.05.2005. The
competent
authority
has
rejected
application by considering the number of
7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
257
dependents and financial condition of
family which has been stated in the
impugned order, as under:

A. Dependents of the deceased
officer

Name
 Age
As on date of death
Rel
ati
ons
hip
Mar
ital
Stat
us
Edu
cati
onal
Qua
lific
atio
n
Voc
atio
n

YY
MM DD

-
1.
Jamil
Ahmad
80

Fat
her
Mar
ried

-

-
2.
Smt.
Bilkis
Fatima
70

Mo
the
r
Mar
ried

-

-
3.
Smt.
Kaneez
Fatima
41

Wi
fe
Wid
ow
Inter
med
iate
Teac
her
4.
Hasan
Tanveer
Iqbal
(petitioner)
28

So
n
Mar
ried
Inter
med
iate
Une
mpl
oyed
5.
Hasan
Jamal Iqbal
26

So
n
Mar
ried
Inter
med
iate
Self
Emp
loye
d

All the three daughters of Late Sri
Iqbal are married and living separately.

B. Financial condition of the family

ASSETS
(Rs. in Lacs)
LIABIL
ITIES
(Rs.
in
lacs)
Terminal benefits paid by the Bank
To Bank
Nil
Provident fund
6.26

Gratuity
2.64

Leave Encashment
1.32

 Total
10.22
Total
Investments

To
outsider
s
NSCs
1.45

Overdraf
t account
LIC Policies
0.50
 Total
1.95

Total

C. Immovable
 Property

 Rs. in lacs

1. House

1.50

2. Plot of land value as per asset
and 0.90

Liability
statement
dated
31.03.2000 of

The deceased officer

D. Monthly income of the
family from all sources after the death of
employee

i. Family Pension (Basic Rs.
3585+D.A. Rs. 2948) : Rs. 6533.00

ii. Assumed interest on 80% of
net corpus of terminal : Rs. 5323.00

benefits (Rs. 1.22 lacsX6.25%)
(20% of net corpus

ignored for incidental expenses)

iii. Income from investments :

 Rs. 656.00

(Rs. 1.95 lac-0.69 lac=1.26
lacX6.25%)

iv Income of employed family
members (wife) :
Rs. 5199.00

Total Monthly income of the
family : Rs.17711.00
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

E.
Income
of
the
family
immediately prior to death of the
employee:

i. Last take home salary of Shri
Tasveer Iqbal :
Rs. 17108.00

ii. Salary of wife of Shri Tasveer
Iqbal :

Rs. 5199.00

Total Monthly Income of the
family :
 Rs. 22307.00

8. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that entire income is being
received by petitioner's step mother and,
therefore,
denial
of
compassionate
appointment
to
petitioner
is
wholly
arbitrary. He also contended that terminal
benefits cannot be treated as a substitute of
providing compassionate employment and
for this purpose reliance is placed on
Supreme Court's judgment in Canara
Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh
Kumar and others (2015) 7 SCC 412 and
Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale) vs.
State of Maharashtra (2015) 3 SCC 399.

9. Bank has contested the matter by
filing Counter Affidavit, and placing on
record,
"Scheme
of
Compassionate
Appointment applicable to S.B.I." It is
pleaded that as per para-10 thereof, relevant
factors for determining financial condition
of family necessary to be taken into
consideration include the number of
dependents, family pension, other terminal
benefits and income of family from other
sources etc. and pursuant to the aforesaid
scheme,
matter
has
been
examined
whereafter petitioner has not been found
entitled for compassionate appointment. It
is urged that petitioner's mother (step
mother) was admittedly employed as
Teacher and that being so, it cannot be said
that family was in penury having no source
of earning so as to justify compassionate
appointment.

10. This Court now has to examine
"whether
denial
of
compassionate
appointment of petitioner in the above facts
and circumstances, is justified or not".

11. It is now well settled that
compassionate appointment is not a vested
right and cannot be claimed as a matter of
course. It is not an appointment by
succession. The objective of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate
succour to the family of deceased employee
who was sole bread-earner and his sudden
death in harness has caused serious
financial scarcity and penury to the family.
To mitigate such sufferance, compassionate
appointment is provided.

12. In Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 481,
Court had the occasion to consider Rule 5
of
Dying
in
Harness
Rules,
1974
(hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974)
and said:

"The very concept of giving a
compassionate appointment is to tide over
the financial difficulties that is faced by the
family of the deceased due to the death of
the earning member of the family. There is
immediate loss of earning for which the
family suffers financial hardship. The
benefit is given so that the family can tide
over such financial constraints. The request
for appointment on compassionate grounds
should be reasonable and proximate to the
time of the death of the bread earner of the
family, inasmuch as, the very purpose of
giving such benefit is to make financial
help available to the family to overcome
sudden economic crisis occurring in the
7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
259
family of the deceased who has died in
harness. But this, however, cannot be
another source of recruitment. This also
cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as
a
right
to
get
an
appointment
in
Government service." (emphasis added)

13. In I.G. (Karmik) and others Vs.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2008(1) ESC
107 (SC), Court said:

"Public employment is considered
to be a wealth. It in terms of the
constitutional scheme cannot be given on
descent. When such an exception has been
carved out by this Court, the same must be
strictly complied with. 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 seeks to achieve, the idea being not to
provide for endless compassion."

14. The importance of penury and
indigence of the family of deceased
employee and need to provide immediate
assistance for compassionate appointment
has been considered in Union of India
(UOI) & Anr. Vs. B. Kishore 2011 (4)
SCALE 308. This is relevant to make the
provisions for compassionate appointment
valid and constitutional else the same
would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. The Court said:

"If the element of indigence and
the need to provide immediate assistance
for relief from financial deprivation is taken
out from the scheme of compassionate
appointments, it would turn out to be
reservation in favour of the dependents of
an employee who died while in service
which would be directly in conflict with the
ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution."

15. It is thus clear that rule of
compassionate appointment has an object
to give immediate relief against destitution.
It is not a provision to provide alternate
employment
or
an
appointment
commensurate with the post held by the
deceased employee. It is not by way of
giving
similarly
placed
life
to
the
dependants of the deceased. It is not a right
reserved to an heir of a deceased employee
founded on succession. It is not a vested
right but a concession.

16. In State of U. P. and others Vs.
Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, (2013) 11 SCC
178, Court observed that compassionate
appointment is a concession and not a right.
It is traceable only to the scheme framed by
the employer for such employment and
there is no right whatsoever outside such
scheme.

17. In Canara Bank and others Vs.
M. Mahesh Kumar and others (2015) 7
SCC 412, Court stressed upon aforesaid
recent authorities that every appointment to
public office must strictly adhere to the
mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and
16 of Constitution of India. Compassionate
appointment is an exception so as to
provide employment to remove financial
constraints suffered by bereft family of a
government servant who die in harness and
family has lost its bread earner. However, it
was held that mere death of a government
employee in harness does not entitle the
family
to
claim
compassionate
appointment.

18. What should be the reckoning
point for considering eligibility etc. for
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compassionate appointment, is an issue
squarely covered by the decision of
Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs.
Rajkumar (2010) 11 SCC 661. Court
observed that claim for compassionate
appointment is traceable only to the scheme
framed by employer for such employment.
There is no right, whatsoever, outside such
scheme. An appointment under the scheme
can be made only if the scheme is in force
and not after it is abolished or withdrawn.
When a scheme is abolished, any pending
application seeking appointment under the
scheme will also cease, unless saved. The
mere fact that an application was made
when the scheme was in force, will not, by
itself, create a right in favour of the
applicant. Court also said that, normally,
three
basic
requirements
to
claim
appointment
under
any
scheme
for
compassionate appointment are: (i) an
application by a dependent family member
of deceased employee; (ii) fulfilment of
eligibility criteria prescribed under the
scheme for compassionate appointment;
and (iii) availability of posts, for making
such appointment.

19. Court also considered, whether
death of deceased employee, by itself,
results in creating a right, i.e., a vested
right
in
the
dependants
to
claim
compassionate appointment or not, and
said, that it would depend on the terms of
scheme. One of such case is where
scheme
provides
for
automatic
appointment
to
a
specified
family
member on the death of any employee
without any of the aforesaid three
requirements, and, in such a case, it can
be said that scheme creates a right in
favour of family member for appointment
on the date of death of employee. In such
a case scheme in force at the time of
death would apply.

20. The second category is where
scheme provides that on the death of an
employee, if a dependent family member
is entitled to appointment merely on
making of an application, whether any
vacancy exists or not, and without the
need to fulfil any eligibility criteria, then
the scheme creates a right in favour of the
applicant, on making application and the
scheme, that was in force at the time
when
application
for
compassionate
appointment was filed, will apply.

21. The third category, where
scheme
contemplates
compassionate
appointment on an application by a
dependent family member, subject to the
applicant fulfilling prescribed eligibility
requirements, and subject to availability
of a vacancy for making the appointment.

22. The fourth category covers a
scheme where the dependant of the
deceased employee has only a right to be
considered for appointment against a
specified quota, even if he fulfils all the
eligibility criteria; and the selection is
made of the most deserving amongst the
several competing applicants, to the
limited quota of posts available.

23. In the cases of schemes like that
of third and fourth categories, there is a
need to verify eligibility and antecedents of
the applicant or the financial capacity of the
family. There is also a need for the
applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy
to arise, or for a selection committee to
assess the comparative need of a large
number of applicants so as to fill a limited
number of earmarked vacancies. In such
cases, there can be no immediate or
automatic appointment merely on an
application. Several circumstances having a
bearing
on
eligibility,
and
financial
7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
261
condition, upto the date of consideration
may have to be taken into account. In all
these cases, it cannot be said that applicant
has a vested right. Here such scheme would
be applicable which was available and
operating when the application is actually
considered, and not the scheme that was in
force earlier when the application was
made. Similarly, if the earlier scheme is
abolished and new scheme, which replaces
it, if specifically provides that all pending
applications will be considered only in
terms of the new scheme, then the new
scheme alone will apply.

24. Court in State Bank of India Vs.
Rajkumar (supra) also observed that
compassionate appointment is a concession
and not a right. The employer may wind up
the scheme or modify it at any time
depending upon its policies, financial
capacity and availability of posts.

25. In taking the above view, Court
also relied on its earlier decision in Union
of India Vs. R. Padmanabhan 2003 (7)
SCC 270.

26. When a family of employee can
be treated to be in penurious condition or
not, and what are the factors which are to
be examined and looked into has also been
considered
in
different
facts
and
circumstances in various cases and one
such case is Union of India and others Vs.
B.Kishore 2011 (13) SCC 131. Therein,
one
K.
Janaki,
working
as
Senior
Accountant in Office of the Directorate of
Postal
Accounts,
Madras
died
on
01.09.1993. Post death dues paid to her
family comprised of Rs.71,000/- towards
death-cum-retirement
gratuity
and
Rs.2,998/- per month as family pension. Sri
B. Kishore, husband of deceased, submitted
an application on 11.01.1994 claiming
compassionate appointment. It was rejected
by Circle Selection Committee by letter
dated 26.02.1998, on the ground that he
was not found in indigent circumstances.
This
letter
dated
26.02.1998
was
challenged before Tribunal at Madras
Bench in O. A. No.610 of 1998, which was
dismissed by Tribunal vide judgment and
order dated 16.07.1998. However, Madras
High Court allowed writ petition filed by
Sri B. Kishore holding that scheme of
compassionate appointment as applicable
when B. Kishore applied for compassionate
appointment did not lay emphasis on
indigence as criteria for withholding or
offering compassionate appointment. This
judgment of Madras High Court came up
for consideration before Supreme Court.
Court firstly held that observation of High
Court that indigence was not criteria for
withholding or offering compassionate
appointment, is misconceived, since, it
loses to visualize the very concept of
compassionate appointment. Court held
that indigence of dependents of deceased
employee is first precondition to bring a
case under scheme of compassionate
appointment. The very purpose and object
of scheme is to provide immediate succour
to family of deceased employee on his
death, which may suddenly find itself in
state of destitution. If element of indigence
and need to provide immediate assistance
for relief from financial deprivation, is
taken out from scheme of compassionate
appointment, it would be taken out to be a
result in favour of dependents of an
employee who died while in service, which
would be directly in conflict with the idea
of equality guaranteed under Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. Supreme
Court
also
took
notice
of
Office
Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 issued by
Central
Government,
revising
and
consolidating instructions in connection
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with
the
scheme
of
compassionate
appointment, and after referring to its
various clauses, said :

"The case of the Respondent
clearly did not come under the revised and
consolidated scheme formulated by Office
Memorandum dated October 9, 1998, that
had come into force when his case came
up for consideration before the High
Court. Even otherwise and without any
reference to the Office Memorandum dated
October
9,
1998,
the
case
of
the
Respondent does not meet or satisfy the
basic object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds." (emphasis added)

27. In MGB Gramin Bank vs.
Chakrawarti Singh, 2014 (13) SCC 583,
father of Chakrawarti Singh who was
working as a Class III employee in MGB
Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as
'Bank') died in harness on 19.04.2006.
Chakrawarti
Singh
applied
for
compassionate appointment on 12.05.2006.
When application was pending, a new
scheme for compassionate appointment
came
into
force
by
Circular
dated
12.06.2006 with effect from 06.10.2006.
Clause 14 of said scheme provided that all
applications pending on the date of
commencement of the scheme shall be
considered for ex-gratia payment to the
family
instead
of
compassionate
appointment. Consequently, Chakrawarti
Singh
was
denied
compassionate
appointment. He preferred a writ petition
and learned Single Judge took a view that
cause
of
action
for
compassionate
appointment arose to Chakrawarti Singh
before the new scheme came into force
and, therefore, it should be considered in
the light of earlier scheme i.e. 1983
Scheme. Division Bench dismissed Intra
Court Appeal preferred by petitioner and
that is how the matter reached Supreme
Court. Court held that every appointment to
public office must be made by strictly
adhering to mandatory requirements of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Compassionate
appointment
is
an
exception carved out in order to remove
financial constraints on bereaved family,
which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death
of a Government employee in harness does
not
entitle
the
family
to
claim
compassionate employment. Competent
Authority
has
to
examine
financial
condition of the family of deceased
employee and it is only if it is satisfied that
without providing employment, family will
not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is
to be offered to the eligible member of the
family and not otherwise. It is also one of
the condition that person claiming such
appointment
must
possess
required
eligibility for the post. Court clearly held as
under :

"Consistent view that has been
taken by Court is that compassionate
employment cannot be claimed as a matter
of right as it is not a vested right. Court
should not stretch the provision by liberal
interpretation beyond permissible limits on
humanitarian grounds."

28. Court also observed that there
should be no leniency in the matter of
providing
compassionate
appointment
beyond the scheme. An 'ameliorating relief'
should not be taken as opening an
alternative mode of recruitment to public
employment. An application made at
belated stage cannot be entertained for the
reason that by lapse of time, purpose of
making
such
appointment
stands
evaporated. It also held that Courts and
Tribunals cannot refer benediction impelled
by sympathetic considerations to make
7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
263
appointments on compassionate grounds
when the Regulation framed in respect
thereof did not cover and contemplate such
appointments. Then referring to judgment
of S.B.I. and another Vs. Raj Kumar
(supra) in para 13, Court said as under :

"13. The Court considered various
aspects of service jurisprudence and came to
the conclusion that as the appointment on
compassionate ground may not be claimed as
a matter of right nor an applicant becomes
entitled automatically for appointment, rather
it depends on various other circumstances i.e.
eligibility and financial conditions of the
family, etc., the application has to be
considered in accordance with the scheme. In
case the Scheme does not create any legal
right, a candidate cannot claim that his case
is to be considered as per the Scheme
existing on the date the cause of action had
arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the
post. In State Bank of India and Anr.
(supra), this Court held that in such a
situation, the case under the new Scheme
has to be considered." (emphasis added)

29. Consequently Supreme Court set
aside judgment of High Court and directed
the matter to be dealt up by the new scheme.

30. Now looking to the matter in
question in the light of above exposition of
law, I find that there is no scheme providing
automatic employment on compassionate
basis. Competent Authority has to examine
financial condition of the family, availability
of vacancy etc. to determine whether
applicant i.e. petitioner in this case is entitled
for compassionate appointment or not.

31. In the present case, it is an
admitted fact that petitioner's family i.e.
family of deceased employee is getting
monthly pension of Rs. 6533/-. One of the
parent i.e. widow of deceased employee is
in service getting salary of Rs. 5199/- per
month. Besides, family received total
amount of Rs. 10.22 lacs as terminal
benefits. These facts stated in impugned
order are not shown incorrect. Collectively,
thus it cannot be said that family is in
penurious condition and cannot survive if
compassionate
appointment
is
not
provided.
I
find
that
in
similar
circumstances denial of compassionate
appointment has been resulted on the
ground that condition of family cannot be
said to be penurious.

32. General Manager (D & PB) and
others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and another
(2004) 7 SCC 271 was a case arising in the
matter of State Bank of India. The
employee Kunti Tiwary 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. 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
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
came to be challenged in Supreme Court,
who allowed appeal and restored judgment
of learned Single Judge.

33. In Punjab National Bank and
others Vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja 2004
(7) SCC 265, 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.

34. In State Bank of India Vs.
Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, again a
matter relating to State Bank of India,
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.

35. In State Bank of India Vs.
Ajay Kumar (Special Appeal No.14 of
2007), decided on 21.11.2017 a Division
Bench of this 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.

36 . Similarly, in Punjab National
Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Special
Appal No. 867 of 2006), decided on
21.11.2013, 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.

37. In view of above exposition of
law, I do not find any manifest error in
the decision taken by respondent-Bank
denying compassionate appointment to
petitioner.

38. Now there is another fatal aspect
in this case. Petitioner's father admittedly
died on On 23.06.2000. Now we are in
2020. After almost 20 years, it will not be
in the interest of justice to pass any order
for
compassionate
appointment
to
petitioner particularly considering the fact
that in 2000 petitioner was 28 years of age,
and now would be 48 years of age. The
object of compassionate appointment is to
7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
265
provide immediate financial assistance to
family to save it from starvation but after
20 years when family has already lived and
met its expenses, there is no justification to
provide compassionate appointment after
such a long time.

39. Moreover, petitioner himself was
a married son in 2000. He was maintaining
not only himself or his grandparents or
others but also his own family. It is well
settled that if the family had sufficient
means to carry on its affairs for long time,
in such a case compassionate appointment
cannot be directed. The purpose of
compassionate appointment is not to
provide employment by succession but it is
to meet immediate necessity arrived at due
to sudden demise of sole bread earner of
the family leaving the legal heirs in penury.

40. The purpose of compassionate
appointment is not for providing a post
against post. It is not reservation in service
by virtue of succession. If the family is not
in penury and capable to maintain itself for
a long time, no mandamus would be issued
after
a
long
time
for
providing
compassionate appointment to a legal heir
of the deceased employee.

41. Repeatedly, it has been held that
the purpose and object of compassionate
appointment is to enable the members of
family of the deceased employee in penury,
due to sudden demise of the sole
breadwinner, get support and succour to
sustain themselves and not to face hardship
for their bore sustenance.

42. An appointment on compassionate
basis claimed after a long time has
seriously been deprecated in Union of
India Vs. Bhagwan 1995 (6) SCC 436
and Haryana State Electricity Board Vs.
Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23. In the
later case, Court said:

"compassionate
appointment
cannot be granted after a long lapse of
reasonable period and the very purpose of
compassionate
appointment,
as
an
exception to the general rule of open
recruitment, is intended to meet the
immediate financial problem being suffered
by the members of the family of the
deceased employee. .....