Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted Where Bereaved Family Does Not Face "Indigent Circumstances": Rajasthan High Court

PNB had rejected the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment after his father expired while serving as a Head Cashier, on the ground that the family was not facing indigent circumstances.

The instant appeal was preferred against a single bench order reversing the Bank's decision.

The bank contended that the elder son of the deceased employee is employed in TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) with an annual income of ₹6.47 lakhs. The family had received terminal dues to the extent of ₹16.42 lakhs with no financial liability. Apart from this, the family owned two houses and received a family pension to the tune of ₹15,993 per month.

Thus, a division bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Kuldeep Mathur set aside the single bench's order while observing,

"The appellant-bank rejected the respondent's claim on 20.02.2016 upon arriving to a conclusion that the family was not facing indigent circumstances warranting employment of one of the family member under the Scheme of 2014. It is pertinent to note here that no material was placed on record to quantify the amount incurred in medical treatment of the deceased employee. Thus, in light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the appellant-bank acted within the framework of law while rejecting the application for compassionate appointment filed by the respondent."

Reliance was placed by the court on Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994), whereby the Supreme Court observed that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood (compassionate appointment). The Apex Court added that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and upon being satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the sudden financial crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.

Further reliance was placed by the court in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. (2004), whereby the Supreme Court has observed that terminal benefits received by the family of the deceased employee and other movable and immovable property possessed by it portrayed that the financial condition was not penurious. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court opined that the denial by the employer bank to give compassionate appointment to the deceased's son was held to be valid.

The court also placed reliance on the State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari & Anr. (2012), wherein the Apex Court ruled that the object of compassionate appointment is only to enable the family of the deceased to overcome sudden financial crisis and not to confer any status upon it. The reliance was also placed on the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree (2021).

Adv. Deepak Vyas appeared for the appellant while Adv. Sushil Bishnoi appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Soni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222

Click here to read/ download Judgment