Dispute over compassionate appointment after Ajithkumar’s father’s death. The core issue revolves around whether the High Court was justified in directing Ajithkumar’s appointment, given the passage of time and the bank’s assessment of the family’s financial condition. The case also examines the applicability of different compassionate appointment policies over time and critically analyzes prior judgments, including a conflicting precedent set by a coordinate bench regarding the relevance of terminal benefits in determining financial hardship. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s judgments, directing a lumpsum payment to Ajithkumar instead of appointment, citing the long delay and its disagreement with aspects of earlier rulings.
(A) Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 142 – Scheme of employment on compassionate grounds, 1993 – Scheme for Payment of Lumpsum Ex-gratia Amount in Lieu of Employment on Compassionate Grounds, 2005 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Father of the respondent passed away on 20th December, 2001 while in service of the appellant when scheme of 1993 was prevailing – 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 – 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 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 – Order of the MD & CEO refusing to grant the prayer of the respondent for compassionate appointment was unexceptionable and, therefore, not liable to any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction – Invoke powers under Article 142 of the Constitution held that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the appellant is directed to make a lumpsum payment of Rs.2.5 lakh to the respondent within a period of 2 (two) months from date and the proceedings be closed – Impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench as well as that of the Single Bench stands set aside.
(Para 32, 46, 49 and 50)
(B) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Scheme of employment on compassionate grounds, 1993 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Scheme of 1993 envisages assessment of the suitability of the claimant for compassionate appointment – Clauses forming part of the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment have to be followed to the letter – Without the respondent having been subjected to a suitability test, the Division Bench plainly fell in error in directing the respondent’s appointment in the category of clerk relying on the decision in Canara Bank.
(Para 33)
(C) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Scheme of employment on compassionate grounds, 1993 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Age relaxation – Held that the question of relaxation would arise only when the claimant satisfies the other requirements of the scheme of 1993 for compassionate appointment – What seems to be logical is that no dependant, who otherwise satisfies all criteria for compassionate appointment including suitability, should be told off at the gate solely on the ground of age-bar – If the age of the claimant is found to be within the relaxable limit, discretion is available to be exercised in an appropriate case – Relaxation of age is a step to be taken in the final stages of the entire process and it would arise for consideration provided all other conditions for appointment are satisfied – If in a given case, such as this, that the family of the deceased is not found to be indigent, the first threshold is not crossed and thereby, the process does not progress any further – In such a case, it would be in idle formality to consider whether relaxation of age should be granted.
(Para 35)
(D) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Scheme of employment on compassionate grounds, 1993 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Lapse of time – Death of the respondent’s father, in this case, occurred in December 2001 – Now, we are in 2025 – The respondent cannot be blamed for the delay, since he was diligently pursuing his claim before the appellant and thereafter before the High Court – Thus, irrespective of how old the respondent is presently, his age cannot be determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a consideration of the same on merits.
(Para 28)
(E) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Scheme of employment on compassionate grounds, 1993 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Financial condition of family – 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 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 “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied – Such “hand-to-mouth” 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 – 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.
(Para 29 and 31)
(F) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Scheme of employment on compassionate grounds, 1993 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Financial condition of family – 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 – 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 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 – Order of the MD & CEO refusing to grant the prayer of the respondent for compassionate appointment was unexceptionable and, therefore, not liable to any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction – Held that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the appellant is directed to make a lumpsum payment of Rs.2.5 lakh to the respondent within a period of 2 (two) months from date and the proceedings be closed – Impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench as well as that of the Single Bench stands set aside.
(Para 32, 46, 49 and 50)
(G) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Scheme for Payment of Lumpsum Ex-gratia Amount in Lieu of Employment on Compassionate Grounds, 2005 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Father of the respondent passed away on 20th December, 2001 while in service of the appellant when scheme of 1993 was prevailing – Which rule/policy/scheme would be applicable for consideration of an application for compassionate appointment, i.e., the rule/policy/scheme prevailing on the date of death, or the date of consideration of the application? – decisions in N.C. Santhosh (supra) and Amit Shrivas (supra), rendered by three-Judge benches, are clearly at variance on the point as to which of the policies would be applicable to decide an application for compassionate appointment – the policy prevailing as on the date of death of the deceased employee or the one prevailing on the date of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment – The reference made by State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari is yet to be decided by the larger bench.
(Para 12, 20 and 21)
(H) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law enumerated.
(Para 11)
Canara Bank V. Ajithkumar G.K
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 184: (DoJ 11-02-2025)
