CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus NITIN on 3 August 2022

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2021passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature atBombay, (Division Bench), allowing the writ petition being Writ PetitionENo. 12352 of 2018 filed by the respondent and directing the appellant toconsider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment asper his seniority in filing the application for compassionate appointment,“but from the date of the petitioner having quit his clerical job withthe ICICI Bank Limited”.

3. The respondent-writ petitioner’s father, Mr. Y.P. Arawade, whowas working as Special Assistant in the Kolgaon Branch of the Appellant-Bank in Ahmednagar District, Maharashtra applied for voluntarypremature retirement from service on 16.04.2015 on the ground of medicalincapacitation.

F

G4. The prayer of the respondent writ petitioner’s father forpremature retirement on the ground of medical incapacitation was allowedwith effect from 26.06.2015.

5. The appellant-Bank has from time to time framed schemes fordependents of deceased employees/physically incapacitated employeesin terms of the guidelines issued by the Government of India/Indian BanksH

Association pursuant to the observations of this Court inUmesh KumarNagpal v. State of Haryanareported in (1994) 4 SCC 138.

6. A scheme called ‘Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia LumpSum Amount in lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds’,hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”, came into force with effectfrom 14.12.2005. The Scheme provided for payment of an ex-gratialump sum amount to employees seeking premature retirement on theground of medical incapacitation.

7. Employees of the appellant-Bank seeking premature retirementdue to medical incapacitation, before attaining the age of 55 years, wereto be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, subject to the condition thatthe total monthly income of the family arrived at, as per the calculationprescribed, was less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of theemployee.

8. By a Circular being CIR/HR/2014-15/532/4 dated 11.08.2014,the Indian Banks’ Association circulated a revised scheme forcompassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks pursuant to theapproval of the Government of India conveyed vide D.O. Letter No.18/2/2013-IR dated 07.08.2014.

9. The scheme as circulated by the Indian Banks’ Associationwas adopted by the appellant-Bank. By a circular dated 08.04.2018, theappellant-Bank notified “The Scheme For Appointment onCompassionate Grounds or Payment of Lumpsum Ex-GratiaAmount”, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Compassionate AppointmentScheme’. The Compassionate Appointment Scheme came into effectfrom 06.08.2014.

10. As recorded above, by an order dated 25.06.2015, theappellant-Bank permitted said Y.P. Arwade, father of the respondentwrit petitioner to voluntarily retire from service on the ground of medicalincapacitation and he was relieved from duty w.e.f 25.06.2015.

11. On 20.07.2015, the respondent writ petitioner applied forcompassionate appointment in place of his father in terms of theCompassionate Appointment Scheme. It appears that at the materialtime when the respondent writ petitioner applied for compassionateappointment, he had been working as a Clerk in the ICICI Bank Ltd.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A12. In his application for compassionate appointment, therespondent writ petitioner suppressed the fact that he was employed inthe ICICI Bank. He misrepresented himself as not employed. Therespondent writ petitioner resigned on 02.03.2016, i.e., almost eight monthsafter he submitted his application for appointment of compassionategrounds.B

A

13. On 25[th] January, 2018 the application of the respondent wasconsidered by a Four Member Committee constituted under theCompassionate Appointment Scheme. The Committee found that theretired employee was earning monthly pension of Rs.25,110/- and hadreceived other retiral financial benefits totalling Rs.27,05,766/-. AfterCadjusting loan liabilities of Rs.12,10,061/-, the net amount received wasRs.14,95,705/-. Further, the family of the retired employee gotRs.3,70,442/- from investments. The committee rejected the proposal forcompassionate appointment of the respondent with petitioner on theground that the family of the retired employee was not indigent as theDfamily had an estimated monthly income of Rs.36,773/-, which was morethan 60% of the last drawn gross salary of Rs.55,978/- of the retiredemployee. It was a condition of compassionate appointment under theCompassionate Appointment Scheme that the total income of the familyshould not exceed 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the retiredemployee.E

14. Needless to mention that the monthly income of the family ofthe retired employee had been estimated without taking into account themonthly salary which the respondent writ petitioner had been receivingfrom ICICI Bank at the time when his father prematurely retired fromservice on the ground of medical incapacitation.F

15. The High Court referred to the judgments of this Court inCanara Bank &Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumarreported in (2015) 7SCC 412; Balbir Kuar &Anr.vs.Steel Authority of India Ltd. &Ors.reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493; and Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale vs.State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary&Ors.reportedGin (2020) 19 SCC 426 cited on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner tocontend that the right of the respondent-writ petitioner to be inducted inemployment of the appellant-Bank on compassionate grounds could notbe defeated merely because the family was indigent.

16. Canara Bank(supra), is not an authority for the propositionHthat financial criteria cannot be the ground for rejection of a claim for CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. NITIN[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

compassionate appointment. Rather, this Court quoted with approval thefollowing paragraph in the earlier judgment of this Court inUmesh KumarNagpal vs. State of Haryanareported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 :-

“2. … The whole object of granting compassionate employmentis thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Theobject is not to give a member of such family a post much less apost for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death ofan employee in harness does not entitle his family to such sourceof livelihood. The Government or the public authority concernedhas to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision ofemployment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that ajob is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The postsin Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual andmanual categories and hence they alone can be offered oncompassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, ofthe financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Theprovision of employment in such lowest posts by making anexception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is notdiscriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependantof the deceased mployee in such posts has a rational nexus withthe object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. Noother posts are expected or required to be given by the publicauthorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in thisconnection that as against the destitute family of the deceasedthere are millions of other families which are equally, if not moredestitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the familyof the deceased employee is in consideration of the servicesrendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the changein the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhileemployment which are suddenly upturned.’

* * *

20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment oncompassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne inmind:

(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in theabsence of rules or regulations issued by the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Government or a public authority. The request is to beconsidered strictly in accordance with the governingscheme, and no discretion as such is left with anyauthority to make compassionate appointment de horsthe scheme.

A

(ii) An application for compassionate employment must bepreferred without undue delay and has to be consideredwithin a reasonable period of time.

B

(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet thesudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the deathor medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service.Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be grantedas a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective ofthe financial condition of the deceased/incapacitatedemployee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity,as the case may be.

C

D

(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one ofthe dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz.parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives,and such appointments should be only to the lowest categorythat is Class III and IV posts.”

E

17. InBalbir Kaur(Supra), this Court held on facts that a familybenefit scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of a deceasedemployee was not a substitute for compassionate appointment. The findingwas rendered in the context of the applicable circular pertaining toappointment on compassionate grounds.

F

18. In UmeshNaraojiUgale(supra), the compassionateappointment was declined on the ground of a ban on compassionateappointment imposed on 22.08.2005 which was continued by a resolutiondated 22.03.2012. This Court, however, found on facts that a relaxationhad initially been granted for persons on the wait list till 31.12.2011.GThereafter, by a resolution dated 01.03.2014, the Government ofMaharashtra had decided to increase the recruitment of Group ‘C’ and‘D’ posts on compassionate ground from 5% to 10?% of vacant posts ofClass ‘C’ and ‘D’ from 2012. The Court, therefore, concluded that theGovernment was continuing to make appointments on compassionateground despite ban of 2005. The question of financial criteria for grant of H

compassionate appointment was not at all in issue in YogeshNagraojiUgale(supra).

19. In our view, the Division Bench patently erred in arriving atthe finding that whether the family was indigent or not could not be aground for refusing compassionate appointment to a candidate who wasotherwise eligible for appointment under the Compassionate AppointmentScheme.

20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exceptionto the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members ofa medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or adeceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by theincapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointmentexcludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job,from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionateappointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalentrules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.

21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility forcompassionate appointment under the Compassionate AppointmentScheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment onCompassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to beconstrued strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionateappointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greaterand/or far more acute financial distress.

22. As held by this court in State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumarreported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 cited by Mr. Debal Kumar Banerji, learnedsenior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Bank, the claim forcompassionate appointment is traceable only to the Scheme framed bythe employer for such employment, and there is no right whatsoeveroutside such scheme. There could be no automatic appointment merelyon application. The respondent-writ petitioner did not have any specialclaim or special right to employment as dependent family member of theretired employee.

23. The High Court patently erred in ignoring the financial criteriafor compassionate appointment under the Compassionate AppointmentScheme. Moreover, the High Court completely overlooked the fact thatthe respondent had suppressed his appointment with ICICI Bank in his A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aapplication for compassionate appointment. The writ petition was liableto be rejected on that ground alone.

24. The law with regard to compassionate appointment being wellsettled, it is not necessary for this Court to discuss the other judgmentscited by Mr. Debal Kumar Banerji, more so since the application of theBrespondent-writ petitioner was, in any case, liable to be rejected on theground of suppression of material facts.

25. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgmentand order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

C

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H