# Sanjay Kumar v. Punjab National Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 391
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16506 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-v-punjab-national-bank-ors-53936
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

9 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
391

और, लैंचगक उत्पीड़न से संरक्षण तथा गररमा से
कायभ करने का अचधकार, मचहलाओं के प्रचत सभी प्रकार के
चवभेदों को दूर करने संबधी अचभसमय जैसे अंतरराष्ट्ट्रीय
अचभसमयों और चलखतों द्वारा सवभव्ययापी मान्यताप्राि ऐसे
मानवाचधकार हैं, चजनका भारत सरकार द्वारा 25 जून, 1993
को अनुसमथभन चकया गया है;

और, कायभस्थल पर लैंचगक उत्पीड़न से
मचहलाओं के संरक्षण के चलए उि अचभसमय को प्रभावी करने
के चलए उपबंध करना समीिीन है;"

२३. यह भी अमववामदत मवमधक मसद्धान्त है मक
'मवशेि अमधमनयम' के उपबन्ध सामान्यतैः 'सामान्य
अमधमनयम' के उपबन्धों पर प्रबल होंगे एवं 'अमधमनयम
२०१३' की धारा २८ के अऩुसार इस अमधमनयम के उपबंध
तत्समय प्रवृत मकसी अन्य मवमध के उपबंध के अमतररि
होंगे न मक अकपीकरण में। यहााँ यह भी उकलेख करना
समीचीन होगा मक , 'मवमनयम २०१०' बैंक द्वारा आंतररक
मवियों पर लागू मवमनयम है इस कारण से भी 'अमधमनयम
२०१३' के उपबंध बैंक पर पूणट रूप से लागू है और
बाध्यकारी है एवं 'मवमनयम २०१०' के उपबंधो पर प्रबल
हैं।

२४. अतैः दण्डादेश वनरस्त मकया जाता है, एवं प्रकरण
को अनुशासनात्मक प्रामधकारी को प्रमत प्रेमित इस मनदेश के
साथ मकया जाता है मक वह 'आंतररक पररवाद समममत' की
अनुशंसा की 'न्यूनतम प्रमतफल की संटतुमत करने पर नये रूप
से मवचार करके नवीन दण्डादेश पाररत करेगा। एवं सुमनमश्चत
करेंगे मक यह प्रमिया आज से ३ माह के भीतर पूणट कर ली
जायें।

२५. उपरोि मवश्लेिण, मनष्किट व मनदेशों के अनुसार,
मवचाराथट मवमधक मविय मनणीत मकया जाता है तथा वतटमान
यामचका मनटताररत की जाती है।
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 391
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025
BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 16506 of 2024

Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Amit Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar

Issue for Consideration
1. Permissibility to calculate the brother's
income while considering the financial condition
of
the
petitioner
to
decide
claim
for
compassionate appointment.
2. Nature of compassionate appointment to be
made in the public office and extent of
permissibility of compassionate appointment
contrary to the rules of equality.
3. Extent of power of the High Court to modify
the government policy.

Headnotes
Service law - Compassionate appointment
- Eligibility - Terminal dues - Financial
conditions of claimant - Relevancy of the
income
of
petitioner's
brother
living
separately
and
further
of
deceased
employee's
widow
to
evaluate
the
financial conditions - Court's power to
modify the government policy, extent of:
Held : The reckoning of the petitioner's brother,
Arjun Singh's income along with the deceased's
family's income is an approach that is absolutely
perverse. Arjun Singh is an independent man
with a wife and two children to support. He lives
separately since the year 2017, when the
deceased was still around. Even if he stayed in
the same house, it would make no difference at
all. He has his own employment and a family to
support. In the same house, there can be two
homes - Not only the deceased's other son's
income, who is an independent man, has to be
excluded from the calculation of the deceased's
dependant's family income, but also the pension
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the deceased employee's widow received
for a few months before she passed away,
leaving behind the petitioner with no means.
[Paras 15 and 20]
Held further : It is true that compassionate
appointment is an exception to the rule of
equality in matters of public employment, but,
compassionate appointment is a class that is
constitutionally valid, if the employer chooses to
provide for it, in terms of their policy. Once that
policy is forged into statutory rules or circulars,
there has to be an even-handed, fair and just
application to all such claims, that are put forth,
upon the demise of a deceased employee by his
dependants, as defined under the scheme.
[Para 23]
Held further : The compassionate appointment
policy, though cannot be modified by the Court
about the parameters of entitlement for a
candidate to establish his claim, but, it is not
that the Court would fold its hands and permit
an absolutely arbitrary, unfair and perverse
application of the principles to evaluate a
compassionate appointment scheme prescribed
by the respondents' policy, rule or circular itself.
We think, in this case, there has been an
arbitrary evaluation of the petitioner's claim,
taking into consideration credits to the family
income, that are absolutely not there. [Para 27]
(E-1)

Case Law Cited
State Bank of India and another v. Somvir
Singh, (200) 4 SCC 778; General Manager, State
Bank of India and others v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8
SCC 475 - referred to.

List of Acts
HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as
modified by HRMD Circular No. 550 dated
09.02.2021

List of Keywords
Compassionate
appointment;
Eligibility;
Essential qualification; Terminal dues; Financial
condition; Resources; Pension; Monthly income;
Living separately; Perverse reasoning; Surviving
family; Misspent; Proof of expenditure; Family
pension; Financial crisis; Manifest error; Public
employment;
Constitutionality;

Policy;
Reasonableness.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
09.09.2024
rejecting
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Mishra,
Advocate
Advs. for the Respondeents : Mr. Ashok Shankar
Bhatnagar, Advocate

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

This writ petition is directed against
the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, Bulandshahr, rejecting the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment. Also, under challenge is a
report of the Committee of Officers dated
16.07.2024, recommending a rejection of
the petitioner's proposal for compassionate
appointment as well as the decision of the
Committee of Officers dated 29.08.2024,
resolving to decline the petitioner's claim.

2. The petitioner's father, the late Suraj
Pal, was a Class IV employee at the Punjab
National Bank1, last posted at Branch
Gulawati, District Bulandshahr. He passed
away in harness on 05.03.2021, due to a
heart attack, while in the care and
management of the Metro Hospital. He left
behind a widowed mother, Premwati Singh,
wife Kamlesh, daughter Pooja and two
sons, Arjun Singh and Sanjay Kumar, the
petitioner. After Suraj Pal's demise, the
petitioner's wife, Kamlesh, represented the
matter
before
the
Bank,
seeking
compassionate appointment for him. The
petitioner's brother Arjun Singh as well as
sister Pooja filed affidavits of no objection
as regards the petitioner's candidature for
compassionate appointment. The petitioner
asserts that he possesses the essential
qualifications
for
appointment
to
a
considerable post with the Bank under the
9 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
393
compassionate appointment scheme then
prevalent. He possesses a certificate of
intermediate education, that he earned in
the year 2022 from the Uttar Pradesh Board
of
High
School
and
Intermediate
Education. After the petitioner's father's
demise, his mother, Kamlesh, also did not
survive for long. She suffered from ill
heath and passed away on 11.01.2022. The
family spent a considerable sum of money
in paying for the petitioner's father's and
mother's treatment.

3. At the time of his demise, Suraj Pal
was in receipt of salary to the tune of
₹24110 per mensem. After his death, no
sum of money was paid by the Bank to his
dependants. The petitioner asserts that a
considerable sum of money was spent on
his mother's treatment, after his father
passed away. He has annexed a photostat
copy of Kamlesh's bank account, besides
that of his father's, Suraj Pal, to prove the
fact. It is the petitioner's case that he does
not have a suitable source of livelihood and
works as a casual labourer in the village,
though he is the holder of an intermediate
certificate. He has been issued a certificate
in this regard by the Village Pradhan.

4. The petitioner, therefore, moved an
application before the Bank, seeking
compassionate appointment on 26.11.2022,
stating all facts and circumstances of the
family. Since no action was taken by the
Bank, the petitioner instituted Writ - A No.
22164
of
2022,
seeking
to
secure
compassionate appointment for himself.
The said writ petition was disposed of at
the admission stage on 31.01.2023, after
hearing learned Counsel for the Bank and
acting on his statement that the petitioner's
application is under active consideration of
the Bank and would be considered and
decided within fifteen days. This Court
directed the Bank to decide the petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment
within next fifteen days, strictly in
accordance with law. The Bank was also
directed to intimate the petitioner of the
decision within 24 hours.

5. The case of the petitioner is that
acting on the orders passed by this Court on
31.01.2023, the Bank rejected his claim for
compassionate
appointment,
without
considering the financial condition of the
petitioner, that is to say, the dependants of
the deceased's family. The remark in the
order of rejection is that the petitioner's
monthly income from all sources is more
than 60% of the notional gross salary of the
deceased employee (net of notional tax), as
per
relevant
policy
guidelines.
The
petitioner pleads that he has lost his father
and
mother,
involving
considerable
expenditure incurred in the treatment. His
brother, Arjun Singh, lives separately along
with his own family. The petitioner, who
was dependent on his father, has plunged
into a sudden economic crisis.

6. It is also averred that the petitioner's
mother, the late Kamlesh, was drawing a
family pension to the tune of ₹13,288 per
mensem, which she received till December,
2021. She died on 11.01.2022, whereafter,
family pension, too, has gone away. The
petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh receives a
monthly salary of ₹15,274, who lives
separately with his family comprising his
wife and two children. He stays separately
since the year 2017. The deceased's family
are, therefore, left without a source of
income. They were totally dependent upon
him.

7. The petitioner has come up with a
case that after his father's demise, the
deceased's family received terminal dues
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the Bank to the tune of ₹987358. It is
urged that the entire sum of terminal dues
as well as other savings have been spent in
his father's and mother's treatment, and the
family are left with no resources. The
petitioner's case is that the respondent-Bank
have calculated the total income of the
deceased's family at a sum of ₹33745.73,
worked out in the manner that a sum of
₹5283 has been regarded as income from
monthly interest from terminal dues,
₹13288 per month as the deceased's wife's
family pension and ₹15274 per month as
the deceased's other son's (Arjun Singh)
salary. The petitioner has averred that there
is no Fixed Deposit in any of the banks,
yielding the hefty interest of ₹5183 per
mensem. Since Kamlesh passed away on
11.01.2022, the family pension has also
ceased. The petitioner's brother, Arjun
Singh, is living separately, as already
asserted, since the year 2017, with a family
of his own, comprising his wife and
children to support. His income is,
therefore, not one that can be reckoned
towards the income of the deceased's
family. The petitioner says that he has to
fend for himself and can hardly make ends
meet, working as a casual labourer.

8. A short counter affidavit was filed
by Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No. 2 on 25.10.2024. A short rejoinder was
filed on 27.10.2024. A counter affidavit
was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2
dated 07.11.2024, and a further short
counter affidavit, on 19.11.2024. A second
counter affidavit was filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 16.12.2024.

9. With so much of pleadings
exchanged, this petition was admitted to
hearing on 17.12.2024, which proceeded on
that day, but remained inconclusive. The
roster changed, on account of which, this
matter was assigned to me, under the orders
of His Lordship the Hon'ble The Chief
Justice dated 15.01.2025. The matter was
finally heard and judgment reserved.

10. Heard Mr. Amit Mishra, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok
Shankar
Bhatnagar,
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondentBank.

11. In paragraph No. 8 of the counter
affidavit dated 07.11.2024, calculation of
the
petitioner's
eligibility
under
the
compassionate appointment scheme has
been set forth. The relevant scheme for
compassionate appointment is carried in
HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020,
as modified by the HRMD Circular No.
550 dated 09.02.2021. The calculation for
determining the petitioner's eligibility, as
pleaded in the counter affidavit, is as
follows :

8. That in view of the laid down
procedure the application of Sh. Sanjay
Kumar was processed. The details which
was considered by the committee of
officers are as under:

 Particulars of the family of the
deceased employee

S
r
N
o
.
Na
me
Rela
tion
ship
A
g
e
Qua
lific
atio
n
M
ar
ita
l
St
at
us
W
het
her
em
plo
yed
De
tail
s
of
inc
om
e
1 Ka
ml
es
h
Wife 4
9
Illite
rate
W
id
o
w
No
Fa
mil
y
Pe
9 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
395
nsi
on
Rs.
13
28
8.0
2
2 Sa
nja
y
Ku
ma
r
Son
2
3
10+2 Si
ng
le
No
Nil
3 Ar
jun
Si
ng
h
Son
3
0
5th
M
arr
ie
d
Ye
s,
PT
S
in
PN
B
(E
mp
Id
515
161
9),
Rs.
15
27
4.0
8
4 Po
oja
Dau
ghte
r
3
3
8th
M
arr
ie
d
No
Nil

 Financial Position of the family
of the Deceased

a) Immovable property:

One house self occupied

b) Terminal Dues received from
the bank:

Dues
Paid
Amount
(in Rs.)
O/s
Loans
with
Intere
Amount
(in Rs.)
st
Provident
Fund
450665.6
7
Housin
g Loan
Nil
Gratuity
741010.7
4
Clean
OD
105419.
42
Leave
Encashme
nt
142137.2
Person
al
Loan
266036
Financial
Aid
50000
Festiva
l Loan
25000
TOTAL
(A)
1383813.
61
TOTA
L (B)
396455.
42
NET TERMINAL DUES RECEIVED
FROM BANK (A-B)=
Rs. 987358.19

c) Family Pension : Rs. 13288.02

d) At the time of his death, the
monthly gross salary received by the
employee was Rs. 41805.06

 Calculation of Eligibility of the
Applicant under the Relevant Scheme :

The
relevant
details
for
determining eligibility of the dependent
family members for employment as per the
above provisions are given as under:-

Sr.
No.
Particulars
Amount
in
Rs.
1
Total Amount of
Terminal Dues
1383813.61
2
Total Amount of
Bank Loans
396455.42
3
Net Amount of
Terminal
Dues
(1-2)
987358.19
4
Total amount of
other investments
Nil
5
Loans
against
other
investments,
if
Nil
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any
6
Net amount of
other
Investments
Nil
7
Monthly interest
on Net Terminal
dues
(as
at
S.no.3) @6.30%
(Maximum
FD
Interest of Bank
applicable
for
staff)
5183.63
8
Monthly income
from
other
investments
(as
at
S.no.6)@6.30%
Nil
9
Amount
of
monthly Family
Pension
13288.02
10
Any
other
income
(Salary
of
Shri
Arjun
Singh, Emp ID
5151619)
15274.08
11
Total
Monthly
income (7 to 10)
33745.73
12
Notional
Gross
Monthly
Salary
of Deceased (Feb
2021)
41805.06
13
Amount
of
notional Income
Tax deducted
1097.75
14
Salary (Net of
notional tax)
40707.31
15
Eligible Amount
(60% of 14)
24424.38
16
Whether eligible
for
compassionate
Appointment?
NO

12. The case for denial of the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment is pleaded in paragraph no. 9
of the counter affidavit, which must be
quoted for every word of it. It reads :

9. That the total last drawn salary
(net of taxes) was Rs. 40,707.31 and the
eligible amount being 60% comes to Rs.
24,424.38. The total monthly income of the
family from all sources comes to Rs.
33,745.73 which is more than 60% of the
last drawn gross salary net of taxes (Rs.
24,424.38) of the deceased employee.
Hence, the Committee of Officers found
that Shri Sanjay Kumar son of Late Shri
Suraj Pal Singh was not eligible for
compassionate appointment in terms of
above provisions of the Scheme.

13. Learned Counsel for parties have
furthered their submissions more or less in
tune with the parties' pleadings.

14. The question is if under the
scheme for compassionate appointment,
current in the bank at the time of the
petitioner's father's demise, is he eligible
for compassionate appointment?

15. We have carefully heard learned
Counsel for parties and perused the
Committee's reasoning for discarding the
petitioner's claim. The reckoning of the
petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh's income
along with the deceased's family's income
is an approach that is absolutely perverse.
Arjun Singh is an independent man with a
wife and two children to support. He lives
separately since the year 2017, when the
deceased was still around. Even if he
stayed in the same house, it would make no
difference at all. He has his own
employment and a family to support. In the
same house, there can be two homes.
Therefore, tagging Arjun Singh's monthly
income as part of the deceased's family's
9 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
397
monthly income is the result of a perverse
reasoning. Arjun Singh's income has to be
excluded from the deceased's family
income, which would reduce the dependant
family's income, as Mr. Bhatnagar admits,
to a figure of ₹18471.65.

16. But, this is not the end of the
matter. The total sum of terminal dues
received on account of the deceased's
demise is a figure of ₹987358, from which,
a monthly income of ₹ 5183.63, on the
basis of interest of 6.30% (maximum Fixed
Deposit interest of bank applicable for
staff) has been inferred. This item of the
deceased's
monthly
income
is
sans
material. It is not that the terminal dues
received by the surviving family of the
deceased have been wasted or misspent.
The petitioner claims that the sum of
money received in terminal dues has been
spent in the treatment of the deceased and
the petitioner's mother, besides drawing on
the corpus of other investments that the
family had.

17. It is not reasonable to think that
any sum of money would have been spent
out of the deceased's terminal dues received
from the Bank on his treatment as such,
because the terminal dues would have, in
any case, been received after the deceased
passed away. But, a perusal of the
deceased's wife's statement of account from
03.10.2021 to 02.11.2021 shows that
substantial withdrawals shown there could
be the money spent on the deceased's wife's
treatment, as she passed away soon after
the deceased employee's demise. What was
spent in medical treatment of the deceased's
wife is a matter that requires to be closely
scrutinised, before drawing a conclusion if
the entire sum of money paid in terminal
benefits was available as investment with
the deceased's family, yielding a monthly
income. The proof of expenditure ought
have been annexed by the petitioner, and, if
not that, the petitioner should have been
asked to produce the relevant vouchers etc.
In the absence of a clear determination that
the terminal dues were not spent on the
deceased's wife's medical treatment, a
blanket inference, that this sum of money
was available to the deceased's family, and
now the petitioner has a source of monthly
income by interest, is patently flawed.

18. The more important aspect in this
calculation of denial for the petitioner is
consideration of the family pension that the
deceased's wife received for a short while.
The deceased passed away on 05.03.2021,
while his wife expired on 11.01.2022. She
passed away, therefore, within the space of
ten months after her husband's demise. The
deceased's family, therefore, were in receipt
of family pension for a very small period of
time. This period of time cannot be
regarded as one stabilising the family and
bringing them out of the financial crisis,
that they plunged into, upon the deceased
employee's sudden demise. If the widow
would have lived on for a relatively longer
period of time, it could be said that the
family pension would account towards the
deceased's dependants' family income. The
extremely short-lived feature of the family
pension in this case would not serve to
reckon the deceased's dependents' total
income.

19. We were persuaded by Mr.
Bhatnagar to accept his submission that
family income has to be reckoned precisely
on the date of the deceased's demise.
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
compassionate appointment is not an
inherent right, but one created by statutory
rules or employer's policy, carried in
administrative circulars, as in this case, a
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
policy, once there, has to be reasonably
construed. It cannot be applied in an
arbitrary manner. The purpose is to bail out
the dependants of the deceased from
financial crisis. A widow, surviving a few
months after the employee's death and
receiving pension for a short period of
time, cannot be regarded as a factor that
would stabilise the dependent family
members and enable them to tide over the
financial crisis.

20. In the circumstances of this case,
therefore, we are of clear opinion that not
only the deceased's other son's income,
who is an independent man, has to be
excluded from the calculation of the
deceased's dependant's family income, but
also
the
pension
that
the
deceased
employee's widow received for a few
months before she passed away, leaving
behind the petitioner with no means.

21. The reliance placed by Mr.
Bhatnagar upon the authority of the
Supreme Court in State Bank of India and
another v. Somvir Singh2, we are afraid,
would not be of much assistance to the
respondents. The reason is that the
respondents have evaluated the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment in
manifest error, committing a blunder of
numerical nature. They have added to the
income of the deceased employee's family,
represented by the petitioner, sums of
money that were not at all relevant to
reckon, as already remarked.

22.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
respondents has next placed reliance upon
the authority of the Supreme Court in
General Manager, State Bank of India
and others v. Anju Jain3. He has invited
our attention to the following remarks in
Anju Jain (supra) :

31. We are of the view that both
the courts were wrong in granting relief to
the
writ
petitioner.
Appointment
on
compassionate ground is never considered
a right of a person. In fact, such
appointment is violative of rule of equality
enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14
of the Constitution. As per settled law,
when any appointment is to be made in
Government or semi-government or in
public
office,
cases
of
all
eligible
candidates must be considered alike. That
is the mandate of Article 14. Normally,
therefore, the State or its instrumentality
making any appointment to public office,
cannot ignore such mandate. At the same
time, however, in certain circumstances,
appointment on compassionate ground of
dependants of the deceased employee is
considered inevitable so that the family of
the deceased employee may not starve. The
primary object of such scheme is to save
the bereaved family from sudden financial
crisis occurring due to death of the sole
bread earner. It is thus an exception to the
general rule of equality and not another
independent
and
parallel
source
of
employment.

23. It is true that it is always open to
the employer to devise a formula to
determine a threshold of eligibility, based
on
financial
circumstances
of
the
deceased's family, in order to enable them
to a consideration for compassionate
appointment. There is nothing inherently
unfair or discriminatory about it. But, the
formula, once devised, as already said,
cannot be applied in an arbitrary fashion in
order to reject a claim for compassionate
appointment.
Considerations
irrelevant
under the employer's scheme or a perverse
application of principles embodied in the
scheme is not to be countenanced. It is true
that compassionate appointment is an
9 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
399
exception to the rule of equality in matters
of public employment, but, compassionate
appointment
is
a
class
that
is
constitutionally valid, if the employer
chooses to provide for it, in terms of their
policy. Once that policy is forged into
statutory rules or circulars, there has to be
an even-handed, fair and just application to
all such claims, that are put forth, upon the
demise of a deceased employee by his
dependants, as defined under the scheme. It
is not the respondents' case that the
petitioner is not a member of the deceased's
family, as defined under the scheme. They
have discarded the claim on the basis of
working out an income for the deceased's
family, that is absolutely not there.

24. There is not much cavil about the
principle or the fact that a married son,
living apart from the deceased's family,
with his wife and children, cannot have his
income reckoned towards the deceased's
family's income. The more subtle issue,
that is involved here, is about the pension
that was paid to the widow until she was
alive for a short while - less than a year
after the deceased's demise. If the widow
had lived for a reasonably long period of
time, long enough for the petitioner,
definitely a dependant of the deceased's, to
settle himself in life and get over the
sudden crisis brought about by the
deceased employee's passing away from
this mortal world, different conditions
would have applied. The test, we think, that
would be just and fair to apply, wellgrounded in reasonableness, as understood
under the Constitution, would be if the
financial crises, that the employee's sudden
demise created, has blown over. Indeed, not
in this case. The deceased passed away on
05.03.2021 and his widow died on
11.01.2022. The short spell of time that the
family pension enured to the benefit of the
deceased employee's family, was not long
enough to provide the petitioner with a
reasonable degree of opportunity to find for
himself suitable employment. The time
period, we think, that would be reasonable,
cannot be placed in a straight-jacket
formula, but still, it should be long enough
to enable a surviving and young dependant
of the deceased employee to stake claim for
public employment or find other means of
livelihood. Decidedly, in our opinion, a
time period of less than a year is not that
long, where the crisis brought on by the
employee's demise can be said to be a
matter of history.

25. The respondents definitely faltered
in not accounting for the money spent out
of terminal dues on the deceased's widow's
aliment, while alive. It had to be taken note
of and counted out of the funds available
for investment. If the medical expenditure
was
reimbursable
and
was
actually
reimbursed, it would be a different matter,
but then, that finding has to be recorded.
The evaluation of the petitioner's claim,
where a recurring monthly income has been
read to the credit of the deceased
employee's family, has to be understood
and revaluated in the aforesaid perspective.
Likewise, revaluation of the petitioner's
claim must be one that places out of
consideration the petitioner's brother, Arjun
Singh's salary of ₹15274 per mensem.
Also, the family pension, which the wife
received, while alive, must be discounted.

26. The respondents are, therefore,
obliged to reconsider the petitioner's claim
with a different set of figures in terms of
their policy. Else, the policy would suffer
from the vice of arbitrariness.

27. The compassionate appointment
policy, though cannot be modified by the
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court about the parameters of entitlement
for a candidate to establish his claim, but, it
is not that the Court would fold its hands
and permit an absolutely arbitrary, unfair
and perverse application of the principles to
evaluate a compassionate appointment
scheme prescribed by the respondents'
policy, rule or circular itself. We think, in
this case, there has been an arbitrary
evaluation of the petitioner's claim, taking
into consideration credits to the family
income, that are absolutely not there.

28. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds
and
stands
allowed.
The
impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed
by the Chief Manager, Punjab National
Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr is hereby
quashed. Likewise, the report of the
Committee of Officers dated 16.07.2024
and the decision of the Committee of
Officers dated 29.08.2024 are also quashed.
A mandamus is issued to the Chief
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle
Office, Bulandshahr and the Committee of
Officers of the Bank, designated under the
HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020,
as modified by HRMD Circular No. 550
dated
09.02.2021,
to
reconsider
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment, bearing in mind the remarks
carried in this judgment. Thereafter, orders
shall be made on the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment within a period
of two months of the date of receipt of a
copy of this order by the Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Circle Office,
Bulandshahr.

29. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, Bulandshahr through the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 400
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 16747 of 2024

Sonu Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager, Punjab National
Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Virendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar

Issue for Consideration
1. Relevancy of the financial criteria to get
compassionate appointment as fixed under the
Circular, and effect of non-fulfillment of this
criteria.
2.
Nature
of
right
to
compassionate
appointment on the public post and it's
limitations.

Headnotes
Service law - Compassionate appointment
- Eligibility - Petitioner's father was died
during service - No objection certificate of
other family members was also filed in
support of application - Total monthly
income of all the members was more than
60% of the last gross salary - Relevancy -
Reckoning of income of petitioner's son
namely Monu Nagar along with the
deceased's family income - Permissibility:
Held : The reckoning of Monu Nagar's income
along with the deceased's family income after
him, is absolutely impermissible. Monu sNagar is
an independent man with his own wife and
children, living separately since the time when
the deceased was around. Even if he stayed in
the same house, it would make no difference.
[Para 19]