It’s Only In “Hand-To-Mouth” Cases That A Claim For Compassionate Appointment Must Be Considered: Apex Court
The Supreme Court was dealing with a Civil Appeal of Canara Bank against the Kerala High Court’s Judgment, dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal.
The Supreme Court emphasised that it is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied.
The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the Canara Bank against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench by which it dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “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.”
The Bench explained that 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. It added that this has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.
AOR Rajesh Kumar Gautam represented the Appellant while AOR Mohammed Sadique T.A. represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent’s father passed away in 2001 while in service of the Appellant-Bank and he had four months’ service left prior to superannuation. A scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, formulated by the Appellant and contained in a Circular was in force when such death occurred. Within a month of his father’s death, the Respondent applied for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. In 2002, the Respondent’s plea was spurned by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank, considering the financial position of the family. Incidentally, the Respondent was in excess of 26 years of age and in terms of the scheme of 1993, the maximum age limit for appointment on a clerical post as well as in the sub-staff category was 26 years. The scheme, however, provided for relaxation of the upper age limit up to a maximum limit of 5 years. The Respondent, though over-aged by a few months, was not considered by the Bank for such relaxation.
However, the Respondent prayed for reconsideration of his prayer and the Divisional Manager expressed its inability to reconsider the Application of the Respondent’s mother. Resultantly, the Respondent approached the High Court and as there were fewer number of Judges than the sanctioned strength all over the country and for reasons beyond its control, it took the High Court more than a decade to decide the Writ Petition. In 2015, the said Petition was allowed and the Bank was directed to reconsider the Respondent’s issue. The Bank re-examined the Respondent’s issue and once again denied favourable consideration of the claim. The Respondent again approached the High Court and his Writ Petition was allowed. This was challenged by the Bank by filing an Intra-Court Appeal and the Division Bench dismissed the same with exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lakhs. Hence, the Bank was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “More often than not, spurned claims for compassionate appointment reach the high courts or even this Court after consuming substantial time. The ordinary rule of litigation is that right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the suitor entered the portals of the court. The relief that the suitor is entitled in law could still be denied in equity on account of subsequent and intervening events, i.e., events between the date of commencement of the litigation and the date of the decision; however, law is well-settled that such relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum for no fault of the suitor.”
The Court added that it would, therefore, not be prudent or wise to reject a claim only because of the time taken by the Court(s) to decide the issue before it. It, however, said that the lapse of time could be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly and 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.
“However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment under consideration. If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection”, it further said.
The Court noted that the death of the Respondent’s father occurred in December 2001 and 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. … 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”, it also remarked.
The Court observed 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 and 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”, it enunciated.
Moreover, the Court elucidated that the power of an Appellate Court is circumscribed by laws and unless a particular case in Appeal is so exceptional in nature that the Appellate Court considers it imperative to exercise power akin to power conferred on Appellate Courts by Order XLI Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), such power should normally not be exercised.
“… the 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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal to an extent, set aside the impugned Judgment, and directed the Bank to make a lumpsum payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the Respondent within 2 months.
Cause Title- Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 184)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocates Anant Gautam, Deepanjal Choudhary, Dinesh Sharma, Likivi Jakhalu, and Kushagra Nilesh Sahay.
Respondent: AOR Mohammed Sadique T.A., Advocates Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, and Santhosh K.
