# Laxmi v. Canara Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 17
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 4339 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxmi-v-canara-bank-ors-48651
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right or an
alternate mode of employment. It has to
be considered and granted under the
relevant rules. The purpose to offer
compassionate appointment is to show
compassion to the family that has suddenly
landed in a crisis for loss of regular income of
the deceased bread winner who met an
accidental death. It is not a heritable right
to be considered after an unreasonable
period, for the vacancies cannot be held
up for long and that appointment should
not ordinarily await the attainment of
majority. Where the family has survived
for long, its circumstances must be seen
before
the
competent
authority
may
consider such appointment. It is not to be
ordinarily granted, where a person died close to
his retirement. (Para 4, 7, 10)

The
intention
of
giving
compassionate
appointment is to virtually restore the source of
livelihood which the family has stood denuded
of on account of bread winner's death in
harness but in the present case, where the
family has survived for more than a decade and
there has never been any effort to seek
compassionate appointment for all those years
passed, the claim of divorced daughter on
account of her being divorced by her husband in
the year 2020, is not liable to be considered as
divorce of a married daughter after 13 years of
the death of her father itself cannot be a cause
to show compassion in the matter.

Mother had been given all the terminal dues and
she
never
made
any
application
for
compassionate appointment and she also settled
her daughter with her husband. Admittedly, she
was not dependent of her father when he died
and only mother was dependent, who never
came
forward
to
seek
appointment
on
compassionate ground. (Para 8, 13, 14)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

6 All. Laxmi Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.
17
and appropriate order to that effect shall be
issued forthwith, preferably, within a
period of fifteen days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. The
petitioner is also directed to submit his
joining at a place where he is directed to
submit his joining in compliance of this
order forthwith.

25. However, no order as to cost.
----------
(2022)06ILR A17
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 4339 of 2022

Laxmi ...Petitioner
Versus
Canara Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Maharani Deen Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right or an
alternate mode of employment. It has to
be considered and granted under the
relevant rules. The purpose to offer
compassionate appointment is to show
compassion to the family that has suddenly
landed in a crisis for loss of regular income of
the deceased bread winner who met an
accidental death. It is not a heritable right
to be considered after an unreasonable
period, for the vacancies cannot be held
up for long and that appointment should
not ordinarily await the attainment of
majority. Where the family has survived
for long, its circumstances must be seen
before
the
competent
authority
may
consider such appointment. It is not to be
ordinarily granted, where a person died close to
his retirement. (Para 4, 7, 10)

The
intention
of
giving
compassionate
appointment is to virtually restore the source of
livelihood which the family has stood denuded
of on account of bread winner's death in
harness but in the present case, where the
family has survived for more than a decade and
there has never been any effort to seek
compassionate appointment for all those years
passed, the claim of divorced daughter on
account of her being divorced by her husband in
the year 2020, is not liable to be considered as
divorce of a married daughter after 13 years of
the death of her father itself cannot be a cause
to show compassion in the matter.

Mother had been given all the terminal dues and
she
never
made
any
application
for
compassionate appointment and she also settled
her daughter with her husband. Admittedly, she
was not dependent of her father when he died
and only mother was dependent, who never
came
forward
to
seek
appointment
on
compassionate ground. (Para 8, 13, 14)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Iqbal Khan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2022) 04
ILR A 714 (Para 5)

2. Navendra Kumar Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., Special Appeal No. 1601 of 2012, decided
on 22.10.2021 (Para 9)

3. U.O.I. Vs Smt. Asha Mishra, Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 13102 of 2010, decided on
07.05.2010 (Para 10)

4. Central Coalfields Ltd. Through its Chairman
and Managing Director & ors. Vs Parden Oraon,
Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2021, decided on 9th
April, 2021 (Para 11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. By means of this writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has prayed for a direction to the
respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner
seeking
compassionate
appointment raised in her representation
dated 18the December, 2021.

3. Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that sole
bread earner had died on 27th December,
2007 and all the dues were paid to the
dependents and further he submits that no
such
application
for
compassionate
appointment was filed for a period of 13
years and now for the first time application
seeking compassionate appointment was
made in the year 2021.

4. It is submitted that the compassionate
appointment is exception to the general rule
of appointment and is offered to the
dependents to tide over the situation to meet
the sudden crisis on account of death of sole
bread earner of the family.

5. The dependents, who have been
able to survive for more than 13 years
cannot claim compassionate appointment
as a matter of right as no such situation
has been pleaded except the fact that
earlier
married
daughter
had
been
divorced by her husband in the year 2020.
He has placed reliance upon the judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Iqbal Khan v. State of U.P. and
others passed in Special Appeal No.- 148
of 2022 decided on 1st April, 2022.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having examined
the pleadings raised and the documents
brought on record, I find merit in the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the respondent bank.

7. The purpose to offer compassionate
appointment is to show compassion to the
family that has suddenly landed in a crisis
for loss of regular income of the deceased
bread winner who met an accidental death.

8. Admittedly, mother had been given
all the terminal dues and she never made
any
application
for
compassionate
appointment and she also settled her
daughter with her husband. Now, if
daughter has got divorced from her
husband, that itself cannot be a ground to
give compassionate appointment to the
divorced daughter after a lapse of thirteen
long years. Admittedly, she was not
dependent of her father when he died and
only mother was dependent, who never
came forward to seek appointment on
compassionate ground.

9. In the case of Navendra Kumar
Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others
(Special Appeal No.- 1601 of 2012)
decided on 22nd October, 2021, Division
Bench of this Court has held thus:

"The
object
of
compassionate
appointment is to enable the family of the
deceased - employee to tied over the
sudden financial crisis due to death of the
bread earner which has left the family in
penury and without means of livelihood, it
is an exception to the normal rule of public
employment, it is a concession. The basic
intention
to
grant
compassionate
appointment is that on the death of the
employee, his family is not deprived of the
means of livelihood. It can not be claimed
by way of inheritance. Compassionate
Appointment can not be treated as a
Bonanza. It is not disbursement of gift. It is
not sympathy syndrome. It is meant to
provide
minimum
relief
for
meeting
immediate hardship to save the bereaved
6 All. Laxmi Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.
19
family from sudden financial crisis due to
death of sole bread winner. If employer
finds that Financial arrangement made for
family subsequent to death of the employee
is adequate members of the family can not
insist for compassionate appointment."

10. Another judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Union of
India v. Smt. Asha Mishra (Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.- 13102 of 2010) decided
on 7th May, 2010 has held thus:

"The principles of consideration for
compassionate appointment have been
firmly settled and have been reiterated from
time to time. Compassionate appointment is
not a vested right or an alternate mode of
employment. It has to be considered and
granted under the relevant rules. The object
of compassionate appointment is to tide
over an immediate financial crisis. It is not
a heritable right to be considered after an
unreasonable period, for the vacancies
cannot be held up for long and that
appointment should not ordinarily await
the attainment of majority. Where the
family
has
survived
for
long,
its
circumstances must be seen before the
competent authority may consider such
appointment. It is not to be ordinarily
granted, where a person died close to his
retirement.
The
Court,
however,
has
emphasised time to time and more
authoritatively in National Institute of
Technology Vs. Neeraj Kumar Singh,
(2007) 2 SCC 481 that such appointment
can be granted only under a scheme. It
should not be considered after a long lapse
of time."

11. Even Supreme Court in the case
of Central Coalfields Limited Through
its Chairman and Managing Director
and others v. Parden Oraon (Civil Appeal
No.- 897 of 2021) decided on 9th April,
2021 vide paragraph 9 has held thus:

"9.
...
The
application
for
compassionate appointment of the son was
filed by the Respondent in the year 2013
which is more than 10 years after the
Respondent's husband had gone missing.
As
the
object
of
compassionate
appointment is for providing immediate
succor to the family of a deceased
employee, the Respondent's son is not
entitled for compassionate appointment
after the passage of a long period of time
since his father has gone missing."

12. Following the above judgments
yet another Division Bench judgment of
this Court very recently in the case of Iqbal
Khan v. The State of U.P. and others
(Special Appeal No.- 148 of 2022) decided
on 1st April, 2022 held that objection to
offer the compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule to only enable
the family to tide over the sudden financial
crisis caused due to the death of sole bread
winner.

13. So, the intention is virtually
restore the source of livelihood which the
family has stood denuded of on account of
bread winner's death in harness but where
the family has survived for more than a
decade and there has never been any effort
to seek compassionate appointment for all
those years passed, the claim of divorced
daughter on account of her being divorced
by her husband in the year 2020, is not
liable to be considered as divorce of a
married daughter after thirteen years of the
death of her father itself cannot be a cause
to show compassion in the matter.

14. Thus Court is of this considered
view that the application of divorced
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
daughter for compassionate appointment
cannot be considered now after more than
13 years.

15. The writ petition lacks merit and
is dismissed.

16. Consigned to records.
----------
(2022)06ILR A20
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 6672 of 2022

Prashant Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Atipriya Gautam, Sri Ishir Sripat, Sri Rishabh
Kesarwani, Sri Vijay Gautam(Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Selection/Appointment -
Suppression - In case offence is petty in
nature committed at young age, such as
stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or is
such
which
does
not
involve
moral
turpitude, cheating, misappropriation etc. or
otherwise not a serious or heinous offence
and accused has been acquitted or if
disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, in such
a case when verification form is filled,
employer may ignore lapse of suppression
or
submitting
false
information
in
appropriate cases on due consideration of
various aspects. (Para 9, 10)

There was no suppression of relevant facts
or submission of false affidavit at that stage
of verification. It is unfortunate that a criminal
case of trivial nature came to be registered against
the petitioner on 10.05.2021, which was later
withdrawn vide order dated 15.02.2022, but the
petitioner was not aware of the same, as neither
any summons were issued nor he was arrested or
had obtained bail from any competent court.
Therefore, at the time of verification, he gave an
affidavit not disclosing the fact about the pendency
of criminal case, which was not deliberate on his
part. (Para 8, 11)

Therefore,
the
order
impugned
dated
31.03.2022 cancelling the candidature of the
petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law
and the same is liable to be set aside.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2016 (8) SCC
471 (Para 5)

2. Pawan Kumar Vs U.O.I. & anr., AIR 2022 SC
2829 (Para 5)

3. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Vijay Kumar & ors.,
Special Appeal (Def.) No. 734 of 2016 (Para 5)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
31.03.2022, passed by the Commandant
44th Bn. P.A.C., Meerut, District Meerut, by
which the candidature of the petitioner for
selection/appointment on the post in
question has been cancelled.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Gautam, Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Mr.
Rishabh
Kesarwani,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the