# Sonu Nagar v. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 400
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16747 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonu-nagar-v-the-general-manager-punjab-national-bank-ors-53891
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,968 of 45,143. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39968 for what follows._

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]
9 All. Sonu Nagar Vs. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.
401
Held further : The right to compassionate
appointment is not an inherent right. It is
governed by the employer's policy, sometimes
expressed in statutory rules, and at others, in
administrative circulars. Since the right is the
creature either of a statute embodying a policy
or a policy expressed in administrative circulars,
the right is no more and no less than what the
rule or the policy circular says it is - If the
compassionate appointment policy or the rules
of an employer devise a formula, as in the
present case, to determine a threshold of
eligibility based on the financial circumstances
of the family, there is nothing illegal, unfair or
discriminatory about it. [Paras 24 and 25]
Held further : The petitioner would be eligible
under
the
respondent's
compassionate
appointment policy if the income of the
deceased's family were 13241.11 or less,
applying 60% of the notional gross monthly
salary last drawn by the deceased's standard,
stipulated under the policy, as the entitling
criteria - The figure does not bring the
petitioner's case where the deceased's family
were eligible to have a member of theirs
appointed on compassionate basis in terms of
the dying-in-harness policy applicable to the
respondents. [Para 30] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
State Bank of India and another v. Somvir
Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778; General Manager,
State of India and others v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8
SCC 475; Canara Bank v. Ajithumar G.K., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 290 - referred to.

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

List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment; Death in harness;
No objection; Eligibility; Family profile; Family's
income; Living separately; Perverse reasoning;
Terminal
dues;
Pure
conjecture;
Vague
assertion;
Inherent
right;
Administrative
circular; Right; Statute; Policy; Vested right;
Pick-and-choose basis; Rule of equality; Public
employment; Reasonable nexus; Sudden demise
of the breadwinner; Intelligible differentia;
Financial
circumstances;
Terminal
benefits;
Employer's policy; Gross monthly salary.
Case Arising From
Order
dated
09.09.2024
rejecting
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Mr. Virendra Singh
Advs. for the Respondeents : Mr. Ashok Shankar
Bhatnagar

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

The
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment
has
been
rejected by the respondents, the officers of
the Punjab National Bank1, and the
petitioner thinks that they have done so
arbitrarily, committing a manifest error of
law. He assails the decision of the Bank to
refuse his application for compassionate
appointment on account of his father's
death in harness. The petitioner has
challenged various orders and resolutions
passed by the officers and Committees of
the Bank, declining his claim, to which a
moreful allusion would be made later in
this judgment.

2. The petitioner's father served the
Indian Army, which he left upon his
retirement from service. He availed the
benefit of being an ex-serviceman and was
appointed as an Armed Guard with the
Bank on 16.12.2014. His date of birth was
20.07.1973. The petitioner's father, the late
Satyaveer
Singh
was
a
permanent
employee of the Bank. He died in harness
on 17.12.2016, suffering a cardiac arrest.
The petitioner made an application for
compassionate
appointment
under
the
dying-in-harness scheme applicable on
11.06.2020. He made another application
on 19.02.2021. At the time of his demise,
the petitioner's father was survived by his
mother Ramwati, aged about 72 years, his
wife Sudesh Devi aged about 45 years, a
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
son Monu Nagar, aged about 27 years,
another son, Sonu Nagar (the petitioner),
aged about 22 years, still another son,
Praveen, aged about 18 years, and, Sonika,
a married daughter aged 24 years. These
facts about the deceased's family profile
are clearly set forth in the application that
the petitioner made for compassionate
appointment to the Bank. It was supported
by a 'No Objection' from the other family
members, saying that they would have no
objection if the petitioner's claim for
compassionate
appointment
were
considered by the Bank.

3. The petitioner, on the strength of the
no objection certificate, which was on
affidavit by the other survivors of the
deceased,
applied
for
compassionate
appointment, as aforesaid. The Bank raised
certain objections by their letter dated
23.02.2022, which the petitioner, through
an affidavit, caused to be removed. These
objections were with regard to dependency
of the family members upon the deceased.

4. The petitioner says that he moved
an application before the Branch Manager
(Currency
Chest),
Ambedkar
Marg,
Ghaziabad,
pressing
his
claim
for
compassionate appointment. The Branch
Manager
last
mentioned
visited
the
petitioner's Village Atta, Post Office
Gulaothi,
District
Bulandshahr
and
appraised
the
circumstances
of
the
deceased's
family.
He
verified
the
particulars about the petitioner's claim. The
petitioner's application was considered in
all its details by a Committee comprising
two officers - the Chief Manager and a
Senior Manager, who, vide their memo
dated 30.12.2022, found the petitioner not
entitled to compassionate appointment in
terms of the scheme for compassionate
appointment dated 26.03.2020, as revised
vide
circular
dated
09.02.2021
and
17.07.2021.

5.
After
consideration
by
the
Committee as aforesaid, recommendations
were placed for decision before another
Committee of three officers, comprising an
Assistant General Manager (HRDD), the
Deputy General Manager (HRMD) and the
General Manager (HRD). They tickmarked
their
approval
to
the
recommendations
of
the
two-member
committee, declining the petitioner's claim.
The Committee of three Managers of the
Bank, who held the petitioner ineligible,
have not dated their orders, but the orders
appear to be one passed in December,
2022, as the footnote of the orders would
show. On the basis of the decision of the
three-member Committee, a formal order
dated 28.04.2023 was issued, where the
Chief
Manager
(HRD),
Kavinagar,
Ghaziabad rejected the petitioner's claim.
The reason assigned to decline the
petitioner's claim all through is that since
the income of the family from all sources,
relevant under the Scheme is more than 60
per cent of the notional gross salary of the
employee,
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment
was
not
sustainable.

6. Aggrieved by the resolution of the
Committee dated 30.12.2022 and the orders
formally rejecting the petitioner's claim
passed by the Chief Manager (HRD),
Ghaziabad dated 20.03.2023, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition.

7. It may be clarified here that though
this writ petition was heard along with
Writ-A No. 16506 of 2024, as certain
questions of fact and law were common
involving the Bank, but we think that
looking to the very different facts in both
9 All. Sonu Nagar Vs. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.
403
matters, separate judgment should be
passed.

8. A notice of motion was issued on
25.11.2024, in response to which, the Bank
has filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner
made an application for amendment, which
was granted on 17.12.2024, leading him to
file an amended copy of the writ petition,
incorporating the necessary pleas. The
petition was admitted to hearing on
18.03.2025, which proceeded forthwith and
judgment reserved.

9. Heard Mr. Virendra Singh, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok
Shankar
Bhatnagar,
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondentBank.

10. The thrust of the submissions
made by Mr. Virendra Singh, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, is that the
Committee,
which
appraised
the
petitioner's
case
and
put
up
their
recommendations for consideration by the
other Committee for decision, all dated
30.12.2022, took into consideration an
irrelevant item towards the income of the
deceased's family, on the foot of which,
they rejected the petitioner's claim in
manifest error. It is urged that they tagged
along with the income of the family, a sum
of ₹35,337 per month, which is the income
of Monu Nagar, an independent son of the
deceased, who was not dependent upon the
deceased for his livelihood and has a family
of his own to take care of. He resides
separately. The submission is that since the
total income of the deceased's family is the
guiding criteria, fixed at less than 60% of
the gross monthly salary last drawn by the
deceased, entitling a dependent of his to
compassionate
appointment,
the
Committee's calculation to discard the
petitioner's claim has gone all wrong. It is
further pointed out by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner that in their report, the
Committee,
which
appraised
the
petitioner's claim, have held that the family
received terminal dues from the Bank in the
sum of ₹2,23,329. He submits that what the
Committee ignored from consideration are
the terminal dues as well as other savings
that the family had spent for survival, and,
particularly, defraying the expenditure in
marriage of the deceased's daughter and
the petitioner's sister. The petitioner does
not have income from any other source. It
is also submitted that the Committee also
ignored the fact that there is a loan, which
the petitioner has taken to support his
livelihood, which is still outstanding.

11. It is next submitted that the
calculation of the family members' income
from all sources, fixing it at a sum of
₹64,219.41
per
month
is
patently
erroneous. It is said that ₹1488.85 has been
worked out on account of monthly interest
payable on the net terminal dues at the rate
of 8% per annum, ₹3084.44 per month as
monthly income from other investments,
also at the rate of 8% and ₹20,309 per
month as the sum of money payable on
account of family pension received by the
deceased's widow from the Army. To this
has been added, as already pointed out, in
manifest error, a sum of ₹35,337, being the
salary drawn by the petitioner's brother,
Monu Nagar, who has nothing to do with
the
deceased's
family
and
lives
independently
with
his
own
family,
comprising his wife and children. A further
sum of ₹4000 per month, as the learned
Counsel for the petitioner says, has been
added on account of the petitioner's
monthly income. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no fixed
deposit with any Bank, and, therefore, the
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
monthly income of ₹1488.86, earned on the
net terminal dues paid to the surviving
family of the deceased, is without basis. It
is argued most persuasively that Monu
Nagar is a married man, who lives
separately
along
with
his
family,
comprising his wife and children at Sri
Gandhi Nagar, Rajasthan since 2015, that is
to say, before the deceased employee
passed away. There is absolutely no basis
to tag his income along with the income of
the deceased's family, comprising his
dependants.

12. It is next pointed out that so far as
the petitioner is concerned, he does manual
work as a labourer in the village and the
locality. He has taken an agricultural loan
from the State Bank of India, Branch
Gulaoti, District Bulandshahr to establish
his livelihood. The loan is in the sum of
₹1,47,000. The petitioner has earned his
B.Com degree. The financial condition of
the
family
is
very
penurious.
The
respondents have calculated the deceased's
family's income in manifest error, without
any basis, to reach those figures that are
there in the recommending Committee's
report, on the foot of which, the decisionmaking Committee have resolved to reject
the
petitioner's
claim.
It
is
also
emphasized that the family do not have
any funds with them invested in the fixed
deposit and that assumption by the
Committee is bereft of the deceased's
family's
financial
details.
Learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is entitled to be considered for
compassionate appointment under the
dying-in-harness scheme applicable, that
is to say, the one in cases of deaths of the
employees occurring prior to 26.03.2020,
except CoViD-19 cases in terms of the
HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020
and its subsequent revisions.

13. Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents points out that upon the demise
of
Satyaveer
Singh,
the
petitioner's
application was considered. He has given
out, in tabular form, the family profile of
the deceased employee and the family's
income, that was taken into consideration
by the Committee of Officers assigned to
decide the compassionate appointee's case.
The said information, which Mr. Bhatnagar
has placed before the Court in tabular form,
is shown below :

• Particulars of the family of
the deceased employee

S
r
.
N
o
.
Na
m
e
Rela
tion
ship
A
g
e
Qual
ifica
tion
M
ari
tal
St
at
us
Wh
eth
er
em
plo
yed
De
tai
ls
of
inc
o
me
1 Su
de
sh
De
vi
Spo
use
4
5
-
Wi
do
w
No
Ar
my
Pe
nsi
on
Rs
.
20,
30
9/-
2 M
on
u
Na
ga
r
Son
2
7
12th
M
arr
ied
Yes Rs
.
35,
33
7/-
3 So
nu
Na
ga
r
Son
2
2
B.Co
m.
M
arr
ied
No
Rs
.
4.0
00/
-
9 All. Sonu Nagar Vs. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.
405
(A
gri
.
Inc
om
e)
4 Pr
av
ee
n
Son
1
7
12th
Si
ng
le
No
Nil
5 So
ni
ka
Dau
ghte
r
2
4
12th
M
arr
ied
No
Nil

14. The financial position of the
deceased's family, that was considered by
the Committee appointed by the Bank to
consider
compassionate
appointment
claims, has been placed by Mr. Bhatnagar
in the following terms :

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
Interest
Amou
nt (in
Rs.)
Provident
Fund
/NPS
1,03,136.
00

Nil
Gratuity
25780
O/s
in
Clean
OD

Leave
Encashm
ent
14143
Vehicle
Loan

Contribut
or Fund
30000
Festival
Loan

Financial
Aid
50000
Society
Loan
with
Bank's
permissi
on

TOTAL
(A)
2,23,329.
00
TOTAL
(B)
Nil
NET TERMINAL DUES RECEIVED
FROM BANK (A-B) =
Rs. 2,23,329.00

c) Family Pension :
 Nil

d) Army Pension : Rs. 20,309/-

• Amount Received / Lilkely to
be
received
from
other
sources
/
investments : Rs. 4,61,251/- (LIC) and Rs.
1,431.60 (Deposit)

• At the time of his death, the
monthly gross salary received by the
employee was Rs. 22,068.52

15. Mr. Bhatnagar has then invited the
Court's attention to the Committee's
calculation of the petitioner's entitlement
under
the
compassionate
appointment
scheme. This, again, according to the
learned Counsel, is a tabular description,
which he has placed before the Court. It is
depicted below :

Sr.
No.
Particulars
Amount in
Rs.
1
Total
Amount
of
Terminal Dues
2,23,329.00
2
Total
Amount
of
Bank Loans
Nil
3
Total
amount
of
other investments
4,62,682.60
4
Loans against other
investments, if any
Nil
5
Net amount of other 4,62,682.60
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investments
6
Monthly interest on
Net Terminal dues
(as at S.no.1) @ 8%
(Maximum
FD
Interest
of
Bank
applicable for staff)
1488.56
7
Monthly
income
from
other
investments (as at
S.no.3) @ 8%
3084.55
8
Amount of monthly
Family
Pension
(Army Pension)
20309
9
Any other income
Monthly income of
Monu Nagar
Monthly income of
Sonu Nagar

35,337.00
4,000.00
10
Total
Monthly
income (7 to 10)
64219.41
11
Notional
Gross
Monthly Salary of
Deceased
(November, 2016)
22068.52
12
Amount of notional
Income Tax deducted
Nil
13
Salary
(Net
of
notional tax)
22068.52
14
Eligible
Amount
(60% of 14)
13241.11
15
Whether eligible for
compassionate
Appointment?
NO

16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the last salary drawn by the
deceased (net of taxes) was ₹22068.52,
and, in order for the petitioner to be eligible
for
compassionate
appointment,
his
dependent family members should have an
income less than 60% of the employee's
last gross salary drawn, net of taxes. The
total monthly income of the family from all
sources is a sum of ₹64219.41, which is
more than 60% of the last gross salary, net
of taxes, that the deceased drew. It is for
this reason that the Bank's Committee for
Compassionate Appointments did not find
the petitioner eligible under the scheme.

17. It is next contended by Mr.
Bhatnagar that the sole contention that the
learned Counsel for the petitioner has
raised is that the monthly income of the
petitioner's
brother,
Monu
Nagar,
amounting to a sum of ₹35337 per month,
cannot be taken into consideration while
calculating the family income of the
deceased at the time of his demise,
inasmuch as Monu Nagar was a married
man, with his own family, independent of
the deceased's family. It is submitted by
learned Counsel for the respondents that
even if Monu Nagar's monthly income is
excluded, while calculating the family's
income, the family would still have an
income of ₹28882 per month per month,
which is much above the last gross salary,
net of taxes, drawn by the deceased
employee,
to
wit,
₹22068.52.
The
deceased's family, therefore, are not in
indigent
circumstances,
nor
is
the
petitioner, within the meaning of HRMD
Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as
modified by HRMD Circular No. 550 dated
09.02.2021. It is urged that in these
circumstances, the petitioner has no case
for consideration of his compassionate
appointment claim. It is argued that
compassionate appointment is offered on
humanitarian grounds and gives expression
to the rule of equality in matters of public
employment. It is not a vested right and this
Court, in exercise of power of judicial
review, cannot be swayed by sympathetic
considerations.

18. We have carefully heard learned
Counsel
for
parties,
perused
the
9 All. Sonu Nagar Vs. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.
407
Committee's reasoning for discarding the
petitioner's claim and the order impugned.

19. We must say at once that so far as
the Committee's analysis of the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment is
concerned, the reckoning of Monu Nagar's
income along with the deceased's family
income
after
him,
is
absolutely
impermissible.
Monu
Nagar
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. He has his own employment
and a family to support. Therefore, tagging
Monu Nagar's monthly income as part of
the deceased's family's monthly income is
the result of perverse reasoning. Monu
Nagar's income has to be excluded from
the deceased's family income, which would
reduce the dependent family's income, as
Mr. Bhatnagar admits, to a figure of
₹28882 per month. This figure too, we
think, not merely on impressions, is much
inflated.

20. The total sum of terminal dues
received on account of the deceased's
demise is a figure of ₹223329, from which,
a monthly income of ₹1488.86, on the basis
of an interest of 8% per annum (maximum
Fixed Deposit interest applicable for bank
staff) has been inferred. This item, in 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.
This sum of money, together with whatever
has been regarded for the deceased as the
corpus of other investments, according to
the
petitioner,
has
been
spent
in
solemnising the deceased's daughter's
marriage. The other investments, that have
been taken into consideration, is a sum of
₹462682. From this sum of money, a
monthly income of ₹3084.55 has been
inferred. We have already indicated that
this sum of money, even if regarded to be
there on account of investments of the
family, has been well utilised, according to
the
petitioner,
in
solemnising
the
deceased's daughter's marriage. The sum
of ₹223329 paid by the Bank to the
deceased's dependant family members,
after his demise, is not a princely sum,
going by the contemporary worth of money
at the time when Satyaveer Singh passed
away and in the short run thereafter.

21. This holds true for the sum of
₹462682.60
on
account
of
other
investments inferred for the deceased's
dependent family. The total sum of
₹686011.60 held to the credit of the
deceased's surviving and dependant family
is a modest sum of money, which the
family would have spent in the deceased's
daughter's wedding. There is no reason to
infer, even if the respondents are absolutely
right, that this money was available to the
family. That the petitioner's case that it was
all spent in solemnising his sister's
marriage, is a claim not to be disbelieved.
The
sum
of
₹686011.60
(₹223329+₹462682.60)
as
a
corpus,
available to the deceased's family, has to
be discounted, and, a fortiori, the monthly
income held to be derived from the said
claim.

22. Quite apart, the availability of
₹223329 in the hands of the deceased's
family after his demise can be accepted as
that spent in his daughter's wedding. The
other sum of ₹462682 shown under the
head of "Other Investments" is an inference
based on pure conjecture. No evidence
aliunde has been shown to us during
hearing, particularly, in the affidavit filed
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on behalf of the respondents, that this sum
of money amounting to ₹462682 was, in
fact, available to the deceased's family.
The respondents are a Bank and they
should have provided the particulars of the
availability of this sum of money in an
account of the deceased's widow or other
family members in order to credit the
family with its possession. There is vague
assertion that this sum of money is likely to
be
received
from
other
sources/investments.
This
is
pure
conjecture in the absence of specific
material to show that this sum of money
was, in fact, available in any kind of
security or deposit to the deceased's family.

23. Therefore, from the deceased's
family income, we have to further deduct a
sum of ₹4573.41. Deducting this sum of
money from the monthly income of ₹28882
per
month,
acknowledged
by
Mr.
Bhatnagar during hearing as the deceased's
family's income, would be reduced to a
sum of ₹24308.59. This is the monthly
income, on the foot of which, the deceased's
entitlement to compassionate appointment was
to be considered by the Bank. They, instead,
considered it on an inflated figure of
₹64219.41 per month. Mr. Bhatnagar very
fairly said before us, as already remarked, that
the deceased's income, that ought have been
considered by the Committee, was a figure of
₹28882 per month, though he hastened to add
that, that figure would not place the
petitioner's case under the policy in any better
stead. We have already found that Mr.
Bhatnagar's fair and candid concession also
does not represent the correct figure of the
deceased's family's monthly income. It is a
still lower sum of money per mensem, that is
to say, ₹24308.59.

24. It now has to be examined if the
petitioner has a right to be considered for
compassionate appointment. It would be
well to remember that the right to
compassionate appointment is not an
inherent right. It is governed by the
employer's policy, sometimes expressed in
statutory
rules,
and
at
others,
in
administrative circulars. Since the right is the
creature either of a statute embodying a
policy or a policy expressed in administrative
circulars, the right is no more and no less than
what the rule or the policy circular says it is.
Also, even if a right to a consideration for
compassionate appointment is there under the
rules or the policy, there is no vested right to
be actually appointed, inhering in the
dependant of a deceased employee. Of
course, if a rule or policy is there and
everything is the same as between two
candidates,
the
respondents
cannot
differentially apply the policy on a pick-andchoose basis. In this connection, reference
may be made to the decision of the Supreme
Court in State Bank of India and another v.
Somvir Singh2, where it has been held :

10.
There
is
no
dispute
whatsoever that the appellant Bank is
required to consider the request for
compassionate
appointment
only
in
accordance with the scheme framed by it
and no discretion as such is left with any of
the authorities to make compassionate
appointment dehors the scheme. In our
considered
opinion
the
claim
for
compassionate appointment and the right,
if any, is traceable only to the scheme,
executive instructions, rules, etc. framed
by the employer in the matter of
providing employment on compassionate
grounds. There is no right of whatsoever
nature
to
claim
compassionate
appointment on any ground other than the
one, if any, conferred by the employer by
way of scheme or instructions as the case
may be.
9 All. Sonu Nagar Vs. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.
409

12. The competent authority
while considering the application had taken
into consideration each one of those factors
and accordingly found that the dependants
of the employee who died in harness are
not in penury and without any means of
livelihood. The authority did not commit
any error in taking the terminal benefits and
the investments and the monthly family
income including the family pension paid
by the Bank into consideration for the
purposes of deciding as to whether the
family of late Zile Singh had been left in
penury or without any means of livelihood.
The scheme framed by the appellant Bank
in fact mandates the authority to take those
factors into consideration. The authority
also did not commit any error in taking into
consideration the income of the family
from other sources viz. the agricultural
land.

13. In our considered opinion, the
High
Court
itself
could
not
have
undertaken any exercise to decide as to
what would be the reasonable income
which would be sufficient for the family for
its survival and whether it had been left in
penury or without any means of livelihood.
The only question the High Court could
have adverted itself to is whether the
decision-making
process
rejecting
the
claim of the respondent for compassionate
appointment is vitiated? Whether the order
is not in conformity with the scheme
framed by the appellant Bank? It is not
even urged that the order passed by the
competent authority is not in accordance
with the scheme. It is well settled that the
hardship of the dependant does not entitle
one to compassionate appointment dehors
the scheme or the statutory provisions as
the case may be. The income of the family
from all sources is required to be taken into
consideration according to the scheme
which the High Court altogether ignored
while remitting the matter for fresh
consideration by the appellant Bank. It is
not a case where the dependants of the
deceased employee are left "without any
means of livelihood" and unable to make
both ends meet. The High Court ought not
to have disturbed the finding and the
conclusion arrived at by the appellant Bank
that the respondent was not living hand-tomouth. As observed by this Court in G.M.
(D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary [(2004) 7 SCC
271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] the High
Court cannot dilute the criterion of penury
to one of "not very well-to-do". The view
taken by the Division Bench of the High
Court may amount to varying the existing
scheme framed by the appellant Bank. Such
a course is impermissible in law.

25. It has also to be remembered that
compassionate appointment is an exception
to
the
rule
of
equality
in
public
employment, which is otherwise governed
by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. It is designed to save from
penury a family which has plunged into the
abyss of economic crisis upon the sudden
demise of the breadwinner. A scheme for
compassionate appointment or the rules, if
they provide for evaluation of the financial
circumstances
of
the
family,
before
offering compassionate appointment to one
of the dependant family members, brings
about an intelligible differentia, bearing a
reasonable nexus with the object to be
achieved. If the compassionate appointment
policy or the rules of an employer devise a
formula, as in the present case, to
determine a threshold of eligibility based
on the financial circumstances of the
family, there is nothing illegal, unfair or
discriminatory about it. In this connection,
reference may be made to the remarks of
the Supreme Court in General Manager,
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of India and others v. Anju Jain3,
where it is observed :

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.

26. Though we have already discarded
the submission of Mr. Bhatnagar that in
order to know the financial status of the
family, the income of the other family
members, namely, other sons, has been
included in the policy of the petitioner, we
again think that it is quite an irrelevant
consideration. Given the contemporary
social milieu, families are nuclear; not
joint. A husband and wife fend for
themselves and their minor children. They
are no longer part of a bigger family, as in
yesteryears. What is really to be tested is if
the family, after the deceased's demise, are
in indigent circumstances.

27. It is true that in order to evaluate
the financial circumstances of the family
for the purpose of offering compassionate
appointment,
terminal
benefits,
investments,
monthly
family
income
including pension and income of the family
from other sources, such as agricultural
land, has to be taken into consideration by
the employer. It is after taking into
consideration all these matters that the
employer must reach a conclusion if
circumstances of the family are, indeed,
penurious. The assessment has to be one
under the employer's policy embodied in
rules or circulars. In this connection, we
may harp back to the principle laid down in
Somvir Singh (supra) in the most eloquent
terms, to which, allusion has been made in
the earlier part of this judgment.

28. Regarding the principles on which
compassionate
appointment
proceeds,
reference must be made to Canara Bank v.
Ajithumar G.K. 4. Dwelling upon the
objective of compassionate appointment
and what is really meant by penurious
circumstances, it was held in AjithKumar
G.K. (supra) :

29. The second sub-issue pertains
to the real objective sought to be achieved
by offering compassionate appointment.
We have noticed the objectives of the
scheme of 1993 and construe such
objectives as salutary for deciding any
claim for compassionate appointment. The
underlying idea behind compassionate
appointment in death-in-harness cases
appears to be that the premature and
unexpected passing away of the employee,
who was the only bread earner for the
family, leaves the family members in such
9 All. Sonu Nagar Vs. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.
411
penurious condition that but for an
appointment on compassionate ground,
they may not survive. There cannot be a
straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to
all cases of employees dying-in-harness
which would warrant appointment on
compassionate grounds. Each case has its
own peculiar features and is required to be
dealt with bearing in mind the financial
condition of the family. It is only in "handto-mouth"
cases
that
a
claim
for
compassionate appointment ought to be
considered and granted, if at all other
conditions are satisfied. Such "hand-tomouth" cases would include cases where
the family of the deceased is 'below
poverty line' and struggling to pay basic
expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc.,
arising out of lack of any steady source of
sustenance. This has to be distinguished
from a mere fall in standard of life arising
out of the death of the bread earner.

30. The observation in Kunti
Tiwary (supra) noted above seems to
assume
significance
and
we
draw
inspiration
therefrom
in
making
the
observation
that
no
appointment
on
compassionate ground ought to be made as
if it is a matter of course or right, being
blissfully oblivious of the laudable object
of any policy/scheme in this behalf.

31. Thus, examination of the
financial condition to ascertain whether the
respondent and his mother were left in utter
financial distress because of the death of
the bread earner is not something that can
be loosely brushed aside.

32. This takes us to the third subissue tasking us to consider whether there
has
been
a
proper
and
reasonable
assessment of the financial condition of the
family consequent upon death of the
respondent's father. The order of the MD &
CEO has been extracted above, verbatim.
What transpires from a bare reading of such
order is that the deceased left behind him
his widow, the respondent and three
daughters as his surviving heirs. All the
daughters were married and settled. Only
his spouse and son could count as
dependants. The daughters were not shown
to be dependent on the deceased while he
was alive and in service. The respondent
and his mother were residing in their own
house. That apart, the deceased was 4
(four) months away from retirement on
superannuation. It has been indicated in
such order what the last drawn net salary of
the deceased was and had he survived even
after superannuation, what quantum of
money would he have received as monthly
pension. Also, the amount of monthly
family
pension
being
paid
to
the
respondent's mother is indicated. Although
on behalf of the respondent a contention
has been raised that there has been no
proper
assessment
of
his
financial
condition, rather strangely, the figures
referred to by the MD & CEO have not
been disputed at all. We are, thus, left with
no option but to proceed on the basis that
the same are correct. If, indeed, the
respondent's father would have received a
pension amount of Rs. 6398/- and burdened
to feed himself as well as his two
dependants, viz. his spouse and son, the
amount
of
family
pension
initially
sanctioned, i.e., Rs. 4637.92 could not
have, by any stretch of imagination, be seen
as insufficient or inadequate for feeding
two mouths. It is also not in dispute that the
net terminal benefits in a sum of Rs. 3.09
lakh paid to the respondent/his mother
would have been the same amount which
the deceased would have received as
terminal benefits after superannuation, had
he been alive. Thus, it is not a case where
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the death of the respondent's father brought
about
such
dire
consequence
and/or
disastrous outcome that the respondent and
his mother would have to cope with
miserable effects which, as the respondent
urged, could be remedied only by offering
an appointment on compassionate ground.
We regret our inability to bead idem with
learned counsel for the respondent.

29. What, therefore, has to be seen is if
the petitioner, or so to speak, the family of
the deceased were, indeed, in penurious
circumstances on account of his demise. It
is not, in the slightest doubt, that
assessment of the deceased's family's
financial condition has to be made
according to rules of the policy relating to
compassionate appointment and not in
accordance with what the Court might
think to be entitling penury for the
deceased's family. This is a logical
corollary of the foremost precept that
compassionate appointment is no inherent
right, but a concession given by the
employer according to its policy framed for
the purpose, if at all, and carried in its rules
or
circulars.
The
entitlement
to
compassionate
appointment
would,
therefore, have to be viewed by those
financial standards of the deceased's family
being indeed hand-to-mouth, as the policy
for compassionate appointment of the
particular employer envisages. Here, the
policy in vogue is carried in HRMD
Circular No.