# Smt. Kanti Srivastava v. State Bank of India and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 170
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35344 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kanti-srivastava-v-state-bank-of-india-and-others-39935
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service
Law
Compassionate
appointment- claim rejected on the
ground- the widow has received lumsum amount from the employer bankapart from so many investment in the
life time of her husband- held- rejection
order illegal- direction issued for fresh
consideration in the light of observation
made by the Court.

Held- Para 7 & 8

The impugned order does not give
reason nor is there any application of
mind into the relevant factors or any
discussion on most material and vital
points.
The
authorities
have
not
bestowed laborious thoughts upon the
factors that the deceased was survived
by three minor daughters and they have
not also given thought to the fact
whether
the
family,
in
the
circumstances,
would
require
any
permanent source of income to sustain
itself after having lost its sole bread
earner to keep the pot of the family
boiling.

In the above perspective, the impugned
order cannot be sustained and is liable to
be quashed. In the result, the petition
succeeds
and
is
allowed
and
the
impugned order declining compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner
is
accordingly quashed attended with the
direction
to
the
respondent
Bank
authorities to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner
for
compassionate
appointment
in
the
light
of
true
intendment of the scheme.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
9. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and I find that the vacancy in
question were advertised and published in
the local news paper including Hindi
Dainik " AAZ" after its vide circulation in
the State and as such the vacancies were
advertised. However, the refusal in not
making sanction and approval of the
appointment by the District Inspector of
Schools is not legally judifiable as the
said ban dated 29.6.1991 by which the
ban for making appointment against the
short term vacancy was lifted.

10. The petitioners are entitled to
receive the salary from the next month
and onwards and the arrears of salary, if
they have taught in the Institution, and
the same shall be disbursed to them
within a period of six months from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order.

11. A copy of this order be given to
the learned counsel for the petitioners on
payment of usual charges within three
days and learned Standing Counsel free of
charges.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35344 of 2001

Smt. Kanti Srivastava

...Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.B. Paul
Sri Subash Dewedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vipin Sinha

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service
Law
Compassionate
appointment- claim rejected on the
ground- the widow has received lumsum amount from the employer bankapart from so many investment in the
life time of her husband- held- rejection
order illegal- direction issued for fresh
consideration in the light of observation
made by the Court.

Held- Para 7 & 8

The impugned order does not give
reason nor is there any application of
mind into the relevant factors or any
discussion on most material and vital
points.
The
authorities
have
not
bestowed laborious thoughts upon the
factors that the deceased was survived
by three minor daughters and they have
not also given thought to the fact
whether
the
family,
in
the
circumstances,
would
require
any
permanent source of income to sustain
itself after having lost its sole bread
earner to keep the pot of the family
boiling.

In the above perspective, the impugned
order cannot be sustained and is liable to
be quashed. In the result, the petition
succeeds
and
is
allowed
and
the
impugned order declining compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner
is
accordingly quashed attended with the
direction
to
the
respondent
Bank
authorities to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner
for
compassionate
appointment
in
the
light
of
true
intendment of the scheme.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Petitioner, widow of late Ashok
Kumar Srivastava, who was serving as
Assistant Manager in the State Bank of
India and was at the relevant time, posted
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Smt. Kanti Srivastava V. State Bank of India and others 171
at Pratapgarh, has preferred this petition
for the relief of quashing the impugned
order contained in the communication
dated 12.7.2001 and also for the relief of
mandamus to the respondents to employ
the petitioner in Class III service of the
State Bank of India.

2. The brief facts, which bear on the
controversy involved in this petition are
that the husband of the petitioner namely
Ashok Kumar Srivastava who held the
post of Assistant Manager in the Bank
was, at the relevant time, posted at
Pratapgarh met with a road accident and
succumbed to his injuries on 26.12.99.
The deceased was survived by his widow
and the three daughters. It is stated that
the petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment
in
Class
3
cadre
commensurate
to
her
educational
qualification. The application moved for
compassionate appointment did not find
favour with the competent authority who
rejected the same by means of the order
contained
in
communication
dated
12.7.2001. It is this order, which is the
causative factor for institution of the
present petition. Detailed order passed for
declining the prayer for compassionate
appointment has been annexed to the
counter affidavit as Annexure CA 2. From
a perusal of the order dated 14.6.2001, it
would transpire that after furnishing
details about the fiscal condition of the
family, it has been spelt out that 'indigent
circumstances do not exist in the
family'.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in vindication of his stand that
the petitioner is entitled to appointment on
compassionate ground, submitted that the
authorities were not justified in reckoning
into consideration the funds received by
family on account of death from employer
including the pension etc. as the basis for
opining that the family was not in
financial straits and consequently for
declining the prayer for compassionate
appointment. He further submitted that
the order spells out no reason and merely
enumerates details about the moveable
and
immoveable
properties
of
the
deceased. It is further submitted that the
order does not spell out any objective
consideration of the various factors
including marriage of three unmarried
daughters of the deceased and as such,
proceeds the submission, the order has
been passed in utter disregard of the
underlying
object
of
compassionate
appointment.
The
learned
counsel
representing the respondent bank, on the
other hand, resisted the claim of the
petitioner
and
contended
that
the
petitioner was not entitled to appointment
of compassionate ground. He further
submitted that mere death furnishes to
foundation for automatic appointment and
that other attendant factors such as
financial condition of the family have also
to be taken into account and in the instant
case, the Bank scanned the case of the
petitioner in all its pros and cons and
boiled down to the opinion that there
existed no indigent circumstances so as to
warrant compassionate appointment.

4. Before proceeding further, it
would
be
appropriate
to
have
acquaintance with the purpose behind
providing compassionate appointment.
The purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate ground is to mitigate the
hardship due to death of the bread earner
in the family and thus there should be
imperativeness
in
providing
such
appointment in order to redeem the family
in distress. It is in the light of the above
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
general principle that I am prompted to
scan the relevant provision which has
been pressed into service by the Bank
authorities
to
decline
compassionate
appointment.

"10. Financial condition of the family.
Appointments in the public services
are made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit.
However, exceptions are made in favour
of dependents of employees dying in
harness and leaving their family in penury
and without any means of livelihood.
Determining the financial condition of the
family is, therefore, an important criterion
for
deciding
the
proposals
for
compassionate
appointment.
The
following factors should be taken into
account for determining the financial
condition of the family.

(i) family pension
(ii) gratuity amount received
(iii) employee's/employer's contribution
of Provident Fund
(iv) any compensation paid by the Bank
or its Welfare fund
(v) proceeds of LIC Policies and other
investments of the deceased employee
(vi) income of family from other sources
(vii) income of other family members
from employment or other sources
(viii) size of the family and verifiable
liabilities, if any

Decisions have been copiously cited from
both
sides
in
vindication
of
their
respective contentions. In the first place, I
propose to examine the case-laws cited by
the learned counsel for the respondent
bank. Sri Vipin Sinha, appearing for the
respondent bank has placed credence on
as many as 21 cases to hammer home the
point and in order to avoid swelling the
judgment. I would deal with so much
precedents as are necessary for the just
adjudication of the controversy involved
in this petition. The learned counsel
placed reliance of Umesh Kumar Nagpal
v. State of Haryana1. The quintessence
of what has been held in this decision by
the Apex Court is that the whole object of
granting compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis. The object is not to give a member
of such family a post much less a post for
post held by the deceased. It has been
further held by the Apex Court that in
such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration
the fact that unless some source of
livelihood is provided, the family would
not be able to make both ends meet. The
second case relied upon by the learned is
Director Education (Secondary) and
another v. Pushpendra Kumart and
others2. The ratio flowing from this case
is that a person cannot insist upon a
particular post. The appointment on class
4 could be offered if class 3 post is not
available. This case echoed the self same
ratio and principles as prescribed in
Nagpal's case. The third case relied upon
by the learned counsel is Kaushal
Kumar Shukla v. C.M., P.N.B. and
another3. In this case, the petitioner was
denied appointment on the ground that the
family had sufficient means and there was
no crisis of livelihood. The fourth case
taken in aid of the case of the Bank is
S.B.I. and another v. Ram Plyarey4. In
this case also the appointment was denied
on ground that financial condition of the
family of the deceased was sound and

1 JT 1994 (3) SC 525
2 (1998) 5 SCC 192
3 2001 (2) ESC (All) 1342
4 200(2) ESC (All) 876
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Smt. Kanti Srivastava V. State Bank of India and others 173
there was no\crisis to tide over. In
Haryana State Electricity Board v.
Naresh Tanwar and another5, the Apex
Court
has
held
that
compassionate
employment is a vested right which could
be exercised any time in future but it
cannot be claimed and offered whatever
after lapse of time and after the crisis in
the family is over. In Sanjeev Kumar
Dubey vs. D.I.O.S., Etawah and others6
it was held by a division bench of this
court that financial status of the family,
qualification and suitability are the
relevant
factors
to
be
taken
into
consideration. The Apex Court in this
case based its decision on the ratio
flowing from Nagpal's case. In Jadwati
Devi vs. State Bank of India and
others7, the decision has been rendered
based on the ratio flowing from Nagpal's
case that the financial condition of the
family of the deceased was sound and
thus appointment was denied. The other
cases cited by the learned counsel are
Haryana State Electricity Board v.
Hakim Singh8, State of H.P. and others
v. Rajesh Kumar9, Jagdish Prasad v.
State of Bihar and another10, Smt.
Sushma Gosain v. Union of India and
others11', Dhiraj Kumar Dixit v. G.M.
(P) UCO Bank Calcutta and others12,
Kishore Singh V. State Bank of India
Kanpur and others13, and Unlon of
India v. Joginder Sharma14. Besides the
above
cases,
decisions
rendered
in

5 JT 1996 (2) SC 542
6 2000 (1) ESC 635
7 1999 (3) AWC 2048
8 JT 1997 (8) 332
9 (2001) 9 SCC 174
10 JT 1995 (9) SC 131
11 (1989) 4 SCC 468
12 JT 2002 (3)
13 2000 (1) Bank CLR 220 (All)
14 (2002) 8 SCC 65
Special Appeal 447 of 1999 Jaddawati
Devi and another v. State Bank of India
and others, Civil Misc. W.P. No. 34547
of 2000 Pushpendra Arora v. SBI and
others, Civil Misc. W.P. No. 16616 of
2001 Abeeda Begum and another v.
Chairman SBI and others, Civil Misc.
W.P. No. 5659 of 2000 Anurag Yadav v.
CGM SBI and others have also been
called in aid by the learned counsel to
enforce his contention that the fiscal
condition of the petitioner was too sound
to warrant the need of any appointment.

5. The distillate of the above
decisions cited by the learned counsel for
the respondent bank is that every
appointment has to be made on merits,
that compassionate appointment could not
be made or claimed as a matter of right
but in case, scheme or the rule prescribes
such conditions or postulates as to warrant
compassionate appointment, it could be
made to tide over sudden crisis befalling
the family taking into consideration the
financial condition of the family of the
deceased to the effect that it will not
jeopardise the livelihood and existence of
the family.

6. In Krishana Kumar v. Union of
India and others15, the Apex Court
observed that only the ratio decidendi and
not the reasons in support of decision
have the force of law. In another case in
The Municipal Corporation of Bombay
v. Thukral Anjall Deo Kumar16 the
Apex Court explained that observation in
a judgement has to be understood in the
context of the facts of that particular case.
The sheet anchor case amongst all the
cases relied upon by the learned counsel

15 1990 (4) SLR (SC) 716
16 1989 (2 SLR 15 (SC)
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
is Nagpal's case (supra). The observation
of the Apex Court in the said case is born
of the direction of the High Court to the
Government
to
offer
compassionate
appointment to the dependent of the
deceased employee-a class I officer, to a
class I or class II post. Here in the instant
case,
the
petitioner
applied
for
appointment
and
it
was
declined
considering
the
lump
sum
amount
received by the petitioner from employer
on various counts and also having regard
to certain private investments made by the
deceased during his life time which the
family of the deceased received . Besides
it does not appear to be the intendment of
the said decision to arrive at a subjective
satisfaction of sound fiscal status on the
basis of lump sum amount and certain
investments made by the deceased in his
lifetime.
The
question
that
begs
consideration is whether mere receiving
certain amount from employer after death
of the bread earner and some other lump
sum amount paid to the family would
suffice vis a vis the factors that there are
daughters of marriageable age to be
married off, that there remains or not any
perennial permanent source of income
from employment of any of the members
of the deceased family, and that how long
the family will be able to sustain on
whatever means left behind by the
deceased. All these aspects have not been
traversed upon nor discussed in the
impugned order and the authorities after
enumerating details of sources of income,
converged to the conclusion that the
family had enough means to sustain itself.
By the impugned order, it appears that the
Bank considered the notional income of
the family of the deceased in declining
appointment to the petitioner and it does
not appear to be the principle and ratio of
any of the decisions cited by the counsel.
No doubt, it was permissible for the bank
to have taken into reckoning the financial
status of the family of the deceased but
not in the manner as has been done in the
instant case. It is settled position in law
that family benefit scheme cannot in any
way be equated with compassionate
appointment and in Balbir Kaur and
another v. Steel Authority of India ltd.
and others17 the Apex court further
observed that the feeling of security drops
to zero on the death of the bread earner
and insecurity thereafter reigns and at that
juncture if some lump sum amount is
made available with a compassionate
appointment, the grief stricken family
may find solace to the mental agony and
manage its affairs in the normal course of
events. In the last it was observed that it is
not that monetary benefit would be
replacement of the bread earner but that
would undoubtedly bring some solace to
the situation. It would thus appear that the
lump sum amount received by the family
of the deceased cannot be a substitute for
employment to be offered to any eligible
member of the family of the deceased in
order to keep the pot of family boiling
after the death of the sole bread earner. In
the above context, I proceed to deal with
tenability of the impugned order. The
impugned
recommendation
after
enumerating details of the lump sum
amount paid in the aftermath of the death
of the deceased, goes to quip by way of
remark as under:

"In view of the Central Office
guidelines/Supreme Court judgment vis a
vis the above financial position of the
family,
we
observe
that
indigent
circumstances do not exist in the family.
We therefore, recommend that request of

17 2000(3) ESC 1618 (SC)
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Maya Press Pt. Ltd. and others V. The Dy. Labour Commissioner, Allahabad & others 175
Smt.
Kanti
Srivastava
for
her
compassionate appointment in the Bank
may please be declined. We shall advise
the Deputy General Manager, State Bank
of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow to advise
Smt. Srivastava suitably and treat the
matter as closed."

7. From a perusal of the above
recommendation on which is affixed the
faconic word 'approved' by way of order
by the competent authority, it appears to
me that the authorities have skimmed the
surface of ratio flowing from various
decisions and has not grasped the pivotal
underlying object of the scheme of
compassionate
appointment.
The
authorities concerned have not assigned
any
reason
for
accepting
recommendation, the necessary corollary
whereof is that the competent authority
has
not applied its mind
on the
recommendation
whether
the
details
furnished by the recommending authority
were
valid
to
warrant
denial
of
appointment of compassionate ground and
whether the authority concerned was
perspicacious
enough
to
assess
the
consequence of denial of appointment to
the bereaved family in the long run. The
object of speaking order and observance
of principles of natural justice is to
prevent miscarriage of justice and secure
fair play in action. In the present case, the
competent authority merely contented
itself by affixing laconic word 'approved'
on the recommendations and has not
assigned
any
reason
and
in
the
circumstances, the denial of appointment
by the competent authority by way of
laconic word 'approved' does not have the
complexion of a valid order passed after
considering all the ramification of the
matter with due regard to the underlying
object of the compassionate appointment.
The impugned order does not give reason
nor is there any application of mind into
the relevant factors or any discussion on
most material and vital points. The
authorities have not bestowed laborious
thoughts upon the factors that the
deceased was survived by three minor
daughters and they have not also given
thought to the fact whether the family, in
the circumstances, would require any
permanent source of income of sustain
itself after having lost its sole bread
earner to keep the pot of the family
boiling.

8. In the above perspective, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and
is liable to be quashed. In the result, the
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order declining compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner
is
accordingly quashed attended with the
direction
to
the
respondent
Bank
authorities to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment
in the light of true intendment of the
scheme.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2001

Maya Press Private Limited and others

...Petitioner
Versus
The
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner,
Allahabad and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.N. Verma
Sri P.K. Mukerjee
Sri J. Nagar