The Allahabad High Court upheld an order rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment made by the wife of a deceased bank employee after noting that the family income was more than 75% of the last salary drawn by the deceased employee and the family was not facing financial destitution as a result of his death.

The Allahabad High Court was considering an Order passed by the competent authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.

The Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot asserted, “The income of the family of the deceased so calculated is more than 60% of the last salary drawn by the deceased. In fact as per the aforesaid calculations, the family income of the petitioner is more than 75% of the last salary drawn. The income of the family so determined establishes that the family does not face financial destitution as a result of the death of the employee. The respondents in the impugned order have been thus correctly found that the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria for grant of compassionate ground appointment as per the provisions of the compassionate ground appointment scheme applicable to the bank.”

Advocate Ajay Kumar Singh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Satish Chaturvedi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The husband of the petitioner was an employee of the respondent- State Bank Of India. He died in the year 2022, and the last drawn gross salary of the deceased was 1,18,800.14. By the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds was declined.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, observed, “Appointments to public posts, government services and to various instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are governed and regulated by comprehensive provisions contained in the Constitution.”

Noticing that appointments on compassionate grounds entail deviation from regular processes of recruitment and other relaxations as well, the bench further explained that the appointments on compassionate grounds passed the test of constitutional validity by a slender margin. “The sole purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tide over the immediate financial crises resulting from the death of the sole earning member of the family”, it stated.

Referring to various precedents of the Apex Court, the Bench said, “An overliberal interpretation of the right to the appointments on compassionate ground will open a floodgate of such appointments and turn them into a veritable source of recruitment. An unjustified generous approach in compassionate ground which is not consistent with the applicable service rules will confer benefit to underserving and ineligible candidates, and simultaneously deny the rights and lawful claims of eligible and meritorious candidates from getting appointment to government posts. The merit is not to be assumed from parentage but has to be achieved through open competition.”

The Court further mentioned, “The compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the deceased. The employer is only required to assess the financial condition which keeps the kitchen fire burning. Further the aforesaid provisions are liable to be strictly adhered to in light of the cases in point discussed earlier.”

Referring to the Ex gratia Financial Relief to dependants of deceased employees on Compassionate Grounds, 2022, which are applicable in the present case, the Bench mentioned that Clause 5 of the said scheme provides for a sound and a rationale criteria for determining the financial condition of the family of the deceased and to make a finding on eligibility for grant of compassionate appointment. This exercise had been undertaken by the Bank.

It was noticed that the family income of the petitioner was more than 75% of the last salary drawn and the family did not face financial destitution as a result of the death of the employee. Thus, in light of such facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Chanchal Sonkar v. Chairman, State Bank Of India And 5 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:50709)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh

Respondent: Advocate Satish Chaturvedi

Click here to read/download Order







Allahabad High CourtJustice Ajay Bhanot

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.