CASE TITLE: CANARA BANK VERSUS AJITHKUMAR G. K., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2025
The Supreme Court, while determining a case related to compassionate appointment, observed that such appointment should be granted only in “hand-to-mouth” cases, provided that all the other conditions are fulfilled. Explaining, the Court said that such situations would include a family ‘below the 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.”
The Court also said that the underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in case of an employee’s death is that he/ she was the sole earner for the family. The Court said that there is no straitjacket formula to be applied uniformly in cases of employee dying in harness. Each case has its own peculiar features and the financial condition must be assessed.
Notably, it has been more than two decades since the claim for compassionate appointment was made. 2001. The respondent’s father was working for the appellant bank and passed away in the year 2001, before his retirement. Accordingly, the respondent sought an appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1993 scheme. The Appellant’s Deputy General Manager rejected the same on the grounds that the respondent’s mother was already getting a family pension and that the respondent was overaged for the applied post.
Consequently, in a second round of litigation, a single-judge bench of the High Court passed a direction to consider the respondent for appointment within two months. Apart from this, a compensation of Rs. five lakhs was directed to be paid to the respondent for the reluctance shown in giving a compassionate appointment in time. When challenged by the appellant, the Division Bench directed the respondent’s appointment within a month and dismissed the appeal with an exemplary cost of Rs. five lakh. Thus, the present appeal.
It may also be mentioned that during the pendency of this litigation before the High Court, another scheme (2005) was introduced. The same entitled the family members of the deceased employees to lump sum ex-gratia payment. Notably, the bank issued a circular, discontinuing appointments under the scheme of 1993.
At the outset, the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra discussed the objective of the scheme and compassionate appointment. The Court also reproduced a plethora of decisions that have set the well-settled principles on an appointment on compassionate grounds.
Taking a cue from this, the Court adverted to the facts of the present case. It highlighted the delay and that it has been more than two decades since the respondent’s father died. The Court stressed the need to need to mitigate hardship and immediate financial crisis on time to achieve the objective of such an appointment.
“Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance.
The 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.” the Court said and thus, it went ahead to assess the present claim.
Amongst the cases cited, the Court stressed that in the decision of General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, no such appointment is a matter of right. Stating thus, the Court on to assess the financial condition of the deceased’s family.
After perusing the appellant’s order, the Court observed that the deceased left behind him his widow, the respondent and three daughters. However, the daughters were married and settled. Thus, only his spouse and son could count as dependants.
At this stage, the Court pointed out that though the respondent had argued that there was a proper assessment of financial condition, however, the figures reached by the appellant bank were not disputed. We are, thus, left with no option but to proceed on the basis that the same are correct., the Court said.
“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.,” the Court added.
Building on this, the Court concluded that the present case is not the one where the respondent’s father’s death caused such severe hardship that could only have been remedied through the compassionate appointment. Placing its reliance on Union of India v. B. Kishore, the Court observed:
“As pertinently held in B. Kishore (supra), indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and that if such indigence is not proved, grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
However, at the same time, the Court, after invoking its inherent power, directed the appellant to make a lump sum payment of Rs.2.5 lakh to the respondent within two months. The same was directed in view of a previous order by a coordinate bench, observing that it would consider directing a lumpsum amount payment to the respondent as a final settlement.
“Though no agreement was reached and whether the respondent is covered under the scheme of 2005 for lumpsum ex-gratia payment has not been examined by us as well as by the High Court, but bearing in mind the approach of the coordinate bench coupled with the circumstance of hope being generated in the mind of the respondent for appointment based on his success before the High Court, we are satisfied 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.,”
In view of this, the Court set aside the impugned orders and dismissed the appeal.
