# Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi (Bhupendra Mani Tripathi) v. State Bank of India and Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 732
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-02-06
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surya-prakash-mani-tripathi-bhupendra-mani-tripathi-v-state-bank-of-india-and-44468
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

S.C., Sri Satish Kishore Kakkar.

A.
"Scheme
For
Appointment
on
Compassionate Grounds For Dependents
Of
Deceased
Employees/Employees
Retired On Medical Grounds" - Clause
6(1) - Appointment on Compassionate
grounds - Competent Authority has to
examine financial condition of deceased
employee and it is only if it is satisfied
that
without
providing
employment,
family will not be able to meet the crisis,
a job is to be offered to an eligible
member
of
family
who
possesses
required eligibility and qualifications
Petitioner's
father,
died
in
harness
on
01.05.1998 - Bank has determined that family
is not in penurious condition and declined to
accept request of compassionate appointment
of petitioner, Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi-
During pendency of writ petition, petitioner
Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi was substituted
by his younger brother Bhoopendra Mani
Tripathi. Family has already survived for 21
years,
at
this
stage
any
direction
for
compassionate appointment will defeat the
very objective of scheme of compassionate
appointment, which is meant for providing
immediate succor to deceased family for its
survival and not providing employment by way
of reservation on account of succession-Rule
of compassionate appointment has an object
to give relief against destitution and is not a
provision to provide alternate employment or
an appointment commensurate with the post
held by the deceased employee. Writ petition
dismissed.(Para 13,15,16,17,34,38)

Case law discussed/relied upon: -

## Text

732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgement and order dated 08.03.2019 in
absolute consonance with the principles
of law and no illegality/irregularity or
perversity
prevails
therein
while
exercising his powers envisaged under
section 319 Cr.P.C.

15. Much emphasis has been laid
down by the learned counsel for the
revisionist on the evidence of CCTV
footage collected by the Investigating
Officer during investigation, from the
office of the revisionist, who happens to
be the Boss of the establishment.

16. At this stage relying upon the
evidence of the CCTV footage, without
testing its authenticity is hit by section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which
speaks about its admissibility of the
electronic record. It is highly risky to
blindly rely upon the same. There is
another
aspect
of
the
matter
that
subordinate
employees
of
the
establishment
had
given
"character
certificates"
through
their
respective
affidavits to the revisionist, which cannot
be relied upon, if compared the same with
the allegations made in the FIR and
various statements given by the informant
during investigation coupled with medical
report of the doctor, which clearly
indicates that the informant (victim) was
subjected to mass molestation by all the
accused persons, including the revisionist.

17. At the cost of repetition, this
Court has no hitch in holding that the
learned
II-Additional
Session
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut
while passing judgement and order dated
08.03.2019
has
vividly
disclosed,
analyzed and critically examined of the
aforesaid aspects on the issue and has
recorded his satisfaction and he has held
therein that there is enough material on
record to try the applicant along with
other co-accused persons to face trial in
S.T. No. 21 of 2018 (State v. Sonu and
others), arising out of Crime No. 206 of
2018, under sections 376-D IPC and
3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, P.S. Ganganagar, District
Meerut.

18. On the aforesaid score, the
instant
revision
falls
flat
and
is,
accordingly, rejected.

19. However, if the revisionist has
not been bailed out so far in the aforesaid
trial and surrenders before the court
concerned, applies for bail within a period
of 30 days from the delivery of this order,
the trial court is directed to given patient
hearing to both the rival parties on the
application for bail and pass appropriate,
speaking
and
reasoned
order
in
accordance with law, provided there is no
other impediment in the case.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Writ- A No. 3240 OF 2002

Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi (Bhupendra
Mani Tripathi) ...Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India and Ors.
 ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Tiwari, Sri Harsh Gopal, Sri Jeevan
Prakash Sharma, Sri Munna Kumar Singh,
Sri
Vinay
Kumar
Mishra
1 All. Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi (Bhupendra Mani Tripati) Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.
733
Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri Satish Kishore Kakkar.

A.
"Scheme
For
Appointment
on
Compassionate Grounds For Dependents
Of
Deceased
Employees/Employees
Retired On Medical Grounds" - Clause
6(1) - Appointment on Compassionate
grounds - Competent Authority has to
examine financial condition of deceased
employee and it is only if it is satisfied
that
without
providing
employment,
family will not be able to meet the crisis,
a job is to be offered to an eligible
member
of
family
who
possesses
required eligibility and qualifications
Petitioner's
father,
died
in
harness
on
01.05.1998 - Bank has determined that family
is not in penurious condition and declined to
accept request of compassionate appointment
of petitioner, Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi-
During pendency of writ petition, petitioner
Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi was substituted
by his younger brother Bhoopendra Mani
Tripathi. Family has already survived for 21
years,
at
this
stage
any
direction
for
compassionate appointment will defeat the
very objective of scheme of compassionate
appointment, which is meant for providing
immediate succor to deceased family for its
survival and not providing employment by way
of reservation on account of succession-Rule
of compassionate appointment has an object
to give relief against destitution and is not a
provision to provide alternate employment or
an appointment commensurate with the post
held by the deceased employee. Writ petition
dismissed.(Para 13,15,16,17,34,38)

Case law discussed/relied upon: -
1. General Manager (D & PB) and others Vs.
Kunti Tiwary and another (2004) 7 SCC 271

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

3. State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9
SCC 571

4. In State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar
(Special Appeal No.14 of 2007)
5. Punjab National Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey
(Special Appal No.867 of 2006)

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

7. Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh
Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23

8. In Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi
and Anr. Vs. Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak 1997
(11) SCC 390

9. Director of Education (Secondary) &Anr. Vs.
Pushpendra Kumar &Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2230

10. State of U.P. &Ors. Vs. Paras Nath, AIR
1998 SC 2612

11. S. Mohan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
and Anr. 1999 (I) LLJ 539

12. Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar &Ors.
AIR 2000 SC 2782

13. In Haryana State Electricity Board Vs.
Krishna Devi JT 2002 (3) SC 485 - 2002 (10)
SCC 246

14. Punjab National Bank &Ors. Vs. Ashwini
Kumar Taneja AIR 2004 SC 4155

15.
In
National
Hydroelectric
Power
Corporation &Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand &Anr. AIR
2005 SC 106

16. State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Sajad
Ahmed AIR 2006 SC 2743

17. I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v. Prahalad Mani
Tripathi 2007 (6) SCC 162

18. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors, 2008 (11) SCC 384

19. M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil
Badyakar and others, (2009) 13 SCC 122- JT
2009 (6) SC 624
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20. Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P.
&Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 481

21. Union of India (UOI) &Anr. Vs. B. Kishore
2011(4) SCALE 308

22. Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India
and others (2011) 4 SCC 209

23. MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh
(2014) 13 SCC 583

24. Canara Bank and others Vs. M. Mahesh
Kumar and others (2015) 7 SCC 412 (E-3)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for petitioner. None
appeared on behalf of respondents.

2. The writ petition under Article
226 of Constitution of India has been filed
against order dated 15.07.1999 issued by
Chief Manager, State Bank of India,
Zonal Officer, Deoria (hereinafter referred
to as "Bank") declining to accept the
request of compassionate appointment of
petitioner, Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi,
on an application submitted by petitioner's
mother, Smt. Phoolmati Devi. During
pendency of writ petition, an Amendment
Application was filed stating that Surya
Prakash Mani Tripathi was 27 years of
age in 2002 when writ petition was filed,
and now he is 43 years of age, and
maintaining his family from his own
income, therefore, for the purpose of
compassionate appointment, petitioner
Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi may be
allowed to be substituted by his younger
brother Bhoopendra Mani Tripathi. This
Amendment Application was allowed
vide Court's order dated 10.01.2019 and
that is how, now petitioner Bhoopendra
Mani Tripathi is before Court to press this
writ petition claiming compassionate
appointment.

3. Facts in brief, giving rise to the
present writ petition, are that father of
petitioner, Late Surendra Mani Tripathi
was working as Assistant Cashier in Bank
and died in harness on 01.05.1998 leaving
behind his widow, mother, two sons and
three unmarried daughters. Petitioner
Bhoopendra Mani Tripathi, was aged
about 11 years and three daughters were
aged about 17, 15 and 13 years
respectively. Petitioner's mother Smt.
Phoolmati Devi filed an affidavit and
submitted an application dated 10.10.1998
requesting for compassionate appointment
to Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi, eldest
son on compassionate ground.

4. It is not in dispute that
compassionate appointment in Bank in
1998 was being governed by "Scheme For
Appointment on Compassionate Grounds
For
Dependents
Of
Deceased
Employees/Employees
Retired
On
Medical Grounds" and for the purpose of
determining "financial condition of the
family", Clause 6(l) thereof provides as
under:

"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
1 All. Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi (Bhupendra Mani Tripati) Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.
735
account of determining the financial
condition of the family:

i) family pension

ii) gratuity amount received

iii) employee's / employer's
contribution to 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 otherwise.

viii) size of the family and
liabilities, if any."

5. In the case in hand, from record it
is evident that the gross salary of
deceased at the time of death was Rs.
11,155.12/- and after deductions, carry
home pay was Rs. 6435.72/-. Considering
financial
conditions
of
family
of
deceased, Bank noticed that family was
paid Provident Fund of Rs. 2,29,852/-,
Gratuity
of
Rs.
1,57,892/-,
besides
monthly pension and family also possess
agricultural land of 1 acre, therefore, it
was not in penurious conditions justifying
compassionate
appointment,
hence,
rejected application by impugned order.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by
Bank, it is pointed out that deceased's
family is being paid family pension of Rs.
5,421/- per month. Besides a sum of Rs.
4.8 lacs was payable towards Provident
Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc
and liability was around Rs. 1.28 lacs.
Thus, after deduction of liability, a sum of
Rs. 3.71 lacs was payable to the family. In
these facts and circumstances, family was
not found living in indigent conditions
justifying compassionate appointment.

7. With respect to State Bank of
India and some other Banks, I find that
there are authorities, which have upheld
denial of compassionate appointment
when similar financial benefits were
available to comparative number of
family members of deceased employee.

8. General Manager (D & PB) and
others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and another
(2004) 7 SCC 271 was a case arising in
the matter of State Bank of India. The
employee Kunti Tiwary died in-harness
on
16.01.1998.
Application
for
compassionate appointment was made
when deceased's son was minor. He
attained
majority
on
25.02.2000.
Thereafter he applied for compassionate
appointment.
Financial
condition
of
family was examined by Bank and it was
found that deceased employee's family
was paid Provident Fund of Rs.3,33,410/-,
Gratuity of Rs.1,73,987/- and Leave
Encashment of Rs. 1,01,344/-. The
deceased employee had an investment of
Rs. 66,000/- in share of State Bank of
India, etc. Family was paid a pension of
Rs.5,583/- per month. The application,
therefore, was rejected on the ground that
possessed assets and monthly income was
such as not to hold family in penury
condition. The family also consisted of a
widow, two sons and a daughter.
Rejection of application was challenged
in Writ Court and a learned Single Judge
dismissed writ petition. In intra Court
appeal judgment of learned Single Judge
was set aside and direction was issued to
Bank to give compassionate appointment.
This order came to be challenged in
Supreme Court, who allowed appeal and
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
restored judgment of learned Single
Judge.

9. In Punjab National Bank and
others Vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja
2004 (7) SCC 265, father of Ashwani
Kumar Taneja, a Class IV employee, died
in harness on 03.12.1999 leaving behind
his mother, widow, two sons and one
daughter. Request for compassionate
appointment was declined by Bank,
whereagainst writ petition was allowed by
learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High
Court and Letters Patent Appeal was
dismissed by Division Bench. The High
Court
held
that
for
considering
application
for
compassionate
appointment,
amount
paid
towards
gratuity, provident fund etc. cannot be
looked into. The matter went in appeal to
Supreme Court and it held that the said
amount can be taken into consideration
and judgment of High Court was reversed
holding that benefit paid after death can
be considered for judging financial
hardship.

10. In State Bank of India Vs.
Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, again a
matter relating to State Bank of India, one
Sukhbir Inder Singh, husband of Jaspal
Kaur died in harness on 01.08.1999 while
working
as
Record
Assistant.
An
application
for
compassionate
appointment of widow was rejected by
Bank. In writ petition filed by Jaspal
Kaur, High Court directed Bank to
reconsider the application, which was
again declined. The matter again came to
High Court, which took a view that retiral
benefits of Rs.4,57,607/- paid to the
family as terminal benefits cannot be said
to be a sufficient amount to bring away
family from financial hardship. Supreme
Court found that family of deceased
consisted of a widow, two daughters and a
son. Terminal benefits were paid as
Rs.4,57,607/- and monthly pension was
Rs.2,055/- and held that in the above facts
and
circumstances
denial
of
compassionate appointment on the ground
that family was not in penurious condition
was justified.

11. In State Bank of India Vs.
Ajay Kumar (Special Appeal No.14 of
2007), decided on 21.11.2017 a Division
Bench of this Court found that terminal
benefits of Rs.3.79 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh from
LIC policy and gross monthly income of
Rs.4,000/- justify denial of compassionate
appointment on the ground that family is
not in penurious condition.

12. Similarly, in Punjab National
Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Special
Appal No.867 of 2006), decided on
21.11.2013, this Court found that family
pension of Rs.4,807/- per month after
death of deceased employee justify denial
of compassionate appointment on the
ground that family is not in penurious
condition.

13. In the present case, petitioner's
father, late Surendra Mani Tripathi, died in
harness on 01.05.1998 leaving behind his
widow, mother, two sons and three unmarried
daughters. The Bank has determined financial
condition of family of deceased and in para 19
of counter affidavit has stated that besides
family pension of Rs. 5,421/- , amount of Rs.
3.71 lacs paid to family which if invested in
Bank, would earn more than Rs. 3092/- per
month and therefore, it cannot be said that
family is in penurious condition.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner, at
this stage, sought to argue that in the
matter
of
some
other
employees,
1 All. Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi (Bhupendra Mani Tripati) Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.
737
compassionate appointment was provided
hence same treatment be given to the
petitioner's case also.

15. However, I find no force in the
submission for the reason that this Court
is also satisfied that in order to consider
penurious
condition,
individual
advantage, disadvantage, income and
liability of family of deceased have to be
taken
into
account
and
different
conditions of different families will not be
guiding factor.

16. Competent Authority has to
examine financial condition of deceased
employee and it is only if it is satisfied
that
without
providing
employment,
family will not be able to meet the crisis,
a job is to be offered to an eligible
member of family. This is further subject
to the condition that such person possess
required eligibility and qualifications, etc.
Considering the total funds and means
available to petitioner's family and also
law discussed above, I do not find any
error in the decision of Bank in denying
compassionate appointment to petitioner.

17. Even otherwise, petitioner's
father died in May, 1998. Today we are in
2019. More than 21 years have passed. At
this stage, it will not be appropriate on the
part of this Court to exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution with
respect
of
relief
of
compassionate
appointment to petitioner, inasmuch as, if
family has already lived for 21 years, at
this stage any direction for compassionate
appointment will defeat the very objective
of scheme of compassionate appointment,
which is meant for providing immediate
succor to deceased family for its survival
and not providing employment by way of
reservation on account of succession.

18.

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

"compassionate
appointment
cannot be granted after a long lapse of
reasonable period and the very purpose
of compassionate appointment, as an
exception to the general rule of open
recruitment, is intended to meet the
immediate
financial
problem
being
suffered by the members of the family of
the deceased employee. ..... the very
object of appointment of dependent of
deceased-employee who died in harness is
to
relieve
immediate
hardship
and
distress caused to the family by sudden
demise of the earning member of the
family and such consideration cannot be
kept binding for years."
 (Emphasis added)

19. In Managing Director, MMTC
Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Pramoda
Dei Alias Nayak 1997 (11) SCC 390,
Court said:

"As pointed out by this Court, the
object of compassionate appointment is to
enable the penurious family of the deceased
employee to tied over the sudden financial
crises and not to provide employment and that
mere death of an employee does not entitle
his family to compassionate appointment."
(Emphasis added)

20. In Director of Education
(Secondary) &Anr. Vs. Pushpendra
Kumar &Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2230, Court
said:
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The object underlying a provision
for grant of compassionate employment is to
enable the family of the deceased employee to
tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death
of the bread earner which has left the family in
penury and without any means of livelihood."

21. In State of U.P. &Ors. Vs.
Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612, Court
said:

"The
purpose
of
providing
employment
to
a
dependent
of
a
government servant dying in harness in
preference to anybody else, is to mitigate
the hardship caused to the family of the
employee on account of his unexpected
death while still in service. To alleviate
the
distress
of
the
family,
such
appointments
are
permissible
on
compassionate grounds provided there
are Rules providing for such appointment.
The purpose is to provide immediate
financial assistance to the family of a
deceased government servant. None of
these considerations can operate when
the application is made after a long
period of time such as seventeen years in
the present case."
 (Emphasis added)

22. In S. Mohan Vs. Government
of Tamil Nadu and Anr. 1999 (I) LLJ
539, Court said:

"The object being to enable the
family to get over the financial crisis
which it faces at the time of the death of
the sole breadwinner, the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and
offered whatever the lapse of time and
after the crisis is over."
 (Emphasis added)

23. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The
State of Bihar &Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2782
it was held:

"compassionate appointment is
intended to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over sudden
crisis resulting due to death of the bread
earner who had left the family in penury
and without any means of livelihood"

24. In Haryana State Electricity
Board Vs. Krishna Devi JT 2002 (3) SC
485 = 2002 (10) SCC 246, Court said:

"As
the
application
for
employment of her son on compassionate
ground was made by the respondent after
eight years of death of her husband, we
are of the opinion that it was not to meet
the immediate financial need of the
family ...."
 (Emphasis added)

25. In Punjab National Bank
&Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja AIR
2004 SC 4155, court said:

"It is to be seen that the
appointment on compassionate ground is not
a source of recruitment but merely an
exception to the requirement regarding
appointments being made on open invitation
of application on merits. Basic intention is
that on the death of the employee concerned
his family is not deprived of the means of
livelihood. The object is to enable the family
to get over sudden financial crisis."
(Emphasis added)

26. In National Hydroelectric
Power Corporation &Anr. Vs. Nanak
Chand &Anr. AIR 2005 SC 106, Court
said:

"It is to be seen that the
appointment on compassionate ground is
not a source of recruitment but merely an
exception to the requirement regarding
appointments
being
made
on
open
invitation of application on merits. Basic
1 All. Surya Prakash Mani Tripathi (Bhupendra Mani Tripati) Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.
739
intention is that on the death of the
employee concerned his family is not
deprived of the means of livelihood. The
object is to enable the family to get over
sudden financial crises."
 (Emphasis added)

27. In State of Jammu & Kashmir
Vs. Sajad Ahmed AIR 2006 SC 2743,
Court said:

"Normally, an employment in
Government or other public sectors
should be open to all eligible candidates
who can come forward to apply and
compete with each other. It is in
consonance with Article 14 of the
Constitution. On the basis of competitive
merits, an appointment should be made to
public office. This general rule should not
be departed except where compelling
circumstances demand, such as, death of
sole bread earner and likelihood of the
family suffering because of the set back.
Once it is proved that in spite of death of
bread earner, the family survived and
substantial period is over, there is no
necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule
of appointment and to show favour to one
at the cost of interests of several others
ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution."
(Emphasis added)

28. In I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi 2007 (6) SCC
162, Court said:

"Public employment is considered
to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional
scheme cannot be given on descent. When
such an exception has been carved out by this
Court, the same must be strictly complied
with. Appointment on compassionate ground
is given only for meeting the immediate
hardship which is faced by the family by
reason of the death of the bread earner. When
an appointment is made on compassionate
ground, it should be kept confined only to the
purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not
to provide for endless compassion."
 (Emphasis added)

29. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2008 (11)
SCC 384, Court held that now a well
settled
principle
of
law
is
that
appointment on compassionate ground is
not a source of recruitment. The reason
for making such a benevolent scheme by
the State or public sector undertakings is
to see that the dependants of the deceased
are not deprived of the means of
livelihood. It only enables the family of
the deceased to get over sudden financial
crises.

30.

Following
several
earlier
authorities, in M/s Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar and others,
(2009) 13 SCC 122 = JT 2009 (6) SC
624, Court said:

"The principles indicated above
would give a clear indication that the
compassionate appointment is not a
vested right which can be exercised at
any time in future. The compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and
offered after a lapse of time and after the
crisis is over."
 (Emphasis added)

31. In Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs.
State of U.P. &Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 481,
Court said:

"The very concept of giving a
compassionate appointment is to tide over
the financial difficulties that is faced by
the family of the deceased due to the
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
death of the earning member of the
family. There is immediate loss of earning
for which the family suffers financial
hardship. The benefit is given so that the
family can tide over such financial
constraints. The request for appointment
on compassionate grounds should be
reasonable and proximate to the time of
the death of the bread earner of the
family, inasmuch as the very purpose of
giving such benefit is to make financial
help available to the family to overcome
sudden economic crisis occurring in the
family of the deceased who has died in
harness. But this, however, cannot be
another source of recruitment. This also
cannot be treated as a bonanza and also
as a right to get an appointment in
Government service."

32. Court considered that father of
appellant
Santosh
Kumar
Dubey
(supra) became untraceable in 1981 and
for about 18 years, family could survive
and successfully faced and over came the
financial
difficulties.
In
these
circumstances it further held:

"That being the position, in our
considered opinion, this is not a fit case
for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is
also not a case where any direction could
be issued for giving the appellant a
compassionate
appointment
as
the
prevalent rules governing the subject do
not permit us for issuing any such
directions."(Emphasis added)

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

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

34. It is thus clear that rule of
compassionate appointment has an object
to give relief against destitution. It is not a
provision
to
provide
alternate
employment
or
an
appointment
commensurate with the post held by the
deceased employee. It is not by way of
giving similarly placed life to the
dependents of the deceased.

35. In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs.
Union of India and others (2011) 4 SCC
209, Court said that compassionate
employment
is
given
solely
on
humanitarian grounds with the sole object
to provide immediate relief to the
employee's family to tide over the sudden
financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. Appointment based solely
on
descent
is
inimical
to
our
Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily
public employment must be strictly on the
basis of open invitation of applications
and comparative merit, in consonance
with Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of
India. No other mode of appointment is
permissible. Nevertheless, concept of
1 All. Anurudh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
741
compassionate appointment has been
recognized as an exception to the general
rule, carved out in the interest of justice,
in certain exigencies, by way of a policy
of an employer, which partakes the
character of the service rules. That being
so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme
or the policy, as the case may be, is
binding both on the employer and the
employee. Being an exception, scheme
has to be strictly construed and confined
only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

36. In MGB Gramin Bank Vs.
Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583,
Court
has
said
that
compassionate
appointment cannot be granted as of right
and
application
for
compassionate
appointment
need
be
decided
as
expeditiously as possible. Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right. Courts
should not stretch the scheme for
compassionate appointment by liberal
interpretation on humanitarian grounds
beyond permissible limits so as to allow
compassionate appointment after a long
time from the date of death. Either such
appointments are made immediately or
within a reasonable time of death and if
appointment is not claimed for long time
or made, it would be travesty of justice to
compassionate appointment after a long
time.

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

38. In the entirety of the facts of this
case and discussion made above, I do not
find any manifest error in the decision
taken by Bank denying compassionate
appointment to petitioner.

39. Dismissed.

40. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ- A No. 9868 of 2019

Anurudh Kumar &Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. &Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. The Constitution of India Articles 14,
19 and 21 - Vires and Validity of Rule
222(D) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998
as
amended
by
the
26th
Amendment - Direction for issuance of
fitness certificate and permit in respect
of the petitioners vehicles beyond 10
years up to 15 years as has been
provided for the educational institutions
bus/vehicle.