Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On SBI For Delay In Deciding Compassionate Appointment Claim

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the son of a deceased bank employee who had sought compassionate appointment after his father’s demise in 2019. While the application was initially made in 2020, the petitioner only approached the Court in 2025.

The Court, while imposing the costs, however, dismissed the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that its very purpose is to provide immediate financial relief to a bereaved family, which had been defeated due to the petitioner’s own delay.

A Bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot, while deciding the matter, observed that “… this Court has not condoned the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, but equally the Court cannot countenance the apathy on part of the respondent bank. Costs of Rs. 100,000/- are imposed upon the respondent bank for failing to decide the representation of the petitioner in an expeditious time frame in light of the charter of their duties.”

Advocate Sankalp Narain represented the petitioner, while Advocate Satish Chaturvedi appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The petitioner’s father was employed with the State Bank of India and passed away in 2019 while in service. Following his demise, the petitioner submitted an application in 2020 seeking a compassionate appointment under the bank’s scheme. However, instead of pursuing the matter promptly, the petitioner became engaged in family litigation regarding succession issues and only approached the High Court with his claim in 2025.

Court’s Observations

The Allahabad High Court, while adjudicating the matter, reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception to the normal recruitment process, created only to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of a breadwinner.

The Court found that the petitioner, instead of showing urgency, remained engaged in family litigation for several years and completed his graduation before moving the High Court, thereby negating any claim of immediate financial distress. The Bench, while making these observations remarked: “the petitioner had undoubtedly made the application within the prescribed time but had approached this Court after an inordinate delay. The delay in approaching the Court was deliberate choice made by the petitioner and not a fait accompli forced by penurious circumstances. On the contrary as seen earlier the petitioner had busied himself in litigation for long years with his family members. He was always aware of his rights and possessed the wherewithal to approach this Court as well. In these circumstances the laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court are not liable to be condoned. The writ petition is barred by delay and laches.”

Furthermore, while emphasising that no delay can be brooked in the applications for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, the Bench observed that, “…constitutional law holdings regarding compassionate ground appointment mandate that dependents claimants have to be vigilant about their rights and ought to diligently prosecute their application for appointment. Delay in filing of the application or apathy in prosecution of the case before the Court for grant of compassionate appointment has not been countenanced by the Courts.”

However, the Court came down heavily on the bank for its indifference in handling the petitioner’s representation. Holding that the respondent bank failed to decide the petitioner’s application expeditiously despite being under a legal duty to do so. This lapse, the Bench stated, had resulted in protracted litigation and caused avoidable hardship to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court directed the bank to pay a sum of ₹1,00,000 as costs to the petitioner within two months.

Conclusion

Dismissing the writ petition for delay and laches, the High Court sought to enforce institutional accountability by directing the respondent State Bank of India to compensate the petitioner with ₹1,00,000 for its failure to discharge its statutory obligations promptly.

Cause Title: Prinsu Singh v. Union Of India and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:173683)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Sankalp Narain, Srivats Narain

Respondents: Advocates Satish Chaturvedi, Sudarshan Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment