Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment criteria: Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025) INSC 184

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11th February 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 184

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

When a family loses its primary breadwinner, can the surviving members expect immediate financial assistance from the deceased’s employer? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K., focusing on the criteria for compassionate appointments. This case examines whether the financial status and terminal benefits received by the family should be considered when evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment.

Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra presided over the bench. The judgment was authored by Justice Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

The case revolves around Ajithkumar G.K.’s application for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was an employee of Canara Bank. Here’s a chronological breakdown of the key events:

• December 20, 2001: Ajithkumar G.K.’s father passes away while employed at Canara Bank, with four months of service remaining before retirement.
• January 15, 2002: Ajithkumar G.K. applies for compassionate appointment under the bank’s existing scheme (Circular No. 154/93 dated May 8, 1993).
• October 30, 2002: Canara Bank rejects the application, citing that Ajithkumar G.K.’s mother receives a family pension of Rs. 4367.92, which purportedly ensures the family’s financial stability, and that Ajithkumar G.K. is over the age limit for the “Prob. Peon” position.
• January 7, 2003: Ajithkumar G.K. requests a reconsideration of his application.
• January 20, 2003: The bank reiterates its inability to reconsider the application, stating that the family’s financial position does not warrant compassionate appointment.
• February 4, 2003: Ajithkumar G.K.’s mother appeals for reconsideration, emphasizing her late husband’s 24 years of service.
• February 18, 2003: The bank again denies the request for reconsideration.
• 2003: Ajithkumar G.K. files a writ petition (W.P. ( C) No. 38363/2003 (P)) with the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• February 14, 2005: Canara Bank introduces a new scheme (Circular No. 35/2005) offering a lump sum ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, discontinuing the 1993 scheme.
• June 16, 2015: The High Court allows Ajithkumar G.K.’s writ petition, setting aside the bank’s earlier rejection and directing reconsideration of his application under the 1993 scheme, taking into account relevant Supreme Court decisions.
• September 8, 2015: The Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer (MD & CEO) of Canara Bank re-examines and rejects Ajithkumar G.K.’s claim, citing the family’s financial status (terminal benefits and pension) as sufficient.
• 2016: Ajithkumar G.K. files a second writ petition (W.P. ( C) No. 16592/2016) with the High Court.
• June 9, 2016: The High Court allows the writ petition, directing the bank to consider Ajithkumar G.K. for appointment under the 1993 scheme and to pay Rs. 5 lakh as compensation for the delay.
• 2016: Canara Bank appeals the decision.
• November 4, 2019: A Division Bench of the High Court dismisses Canara Bank’s appeal, imposing additional costs of Rs. 5 lakh and directing immediate appointment of Ajithkumar G.K.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The course of proceedings in this case involved multiple stages of litigation before reaching the Supreme Court.

• Initial Writ Petition: Ajithkumar G.K. initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala, challenging the bank’s rejection of his application for compassionate appointment. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the bank to reconsider his application under the 1993 scheme.
• Rejection by MD & CEO: Following the High Court’s direction, the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer (MD & CEO) of Canara Bank re-examined Ajithkumar G.K.’s claim but again rejected it, citing the family’s financial status as sufficient.
• Second Writ Petition: Ajithkumar G.K. then filed a second writ petition, which the High Court allowed, directing the bank to consider him for appointment and to pay compensation for the delay.
• Intra-Court Appeal: Canara Bank appealed this decision, but a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, imposing additional costs and directing immediate appointment.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• Scheme of 1993: This scheme, introduced by Canara Bank, outlines the criteria and procedures for compassionate appointments. The objective of the scheme is to help dependents of employees who die or become disabled while in service, providing financial assistance to overcome immediate difficulties. The relevant extract from the scheme is:
  
  “OBJECTIVES: The Scheme of employment on compassionate grounds (hereinafter called ‘Scheme’) has been evolved to help dependents, of our employees who die or become totally and permanently disabled while in harness, and to over come the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income.”
• Article 226 of the Constitution: This article grants High Courts the power to issue writs, including mandamus, to enforce fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Ajithkumar G.K. invoked this article to challenge the bank’s decisions.

Arguments

Both Canara Bank and Ajithkumar G.K. presented arguments to support their respective positions.

Arguments by Canara Bank:

• The bank argued that the High Court’s reliance on paragraph 19 of the ruling in Canara Bank v M Mahesh Kumar was misplaced because the facts of the present case differed significantly and the contents of paragraph 19 were merely observations, not a binding precedent.
• The bank contended that the decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were inconsistent with legal principles established by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions.
• The bank asserted that in matters concerning appointment on compassionate grounds, it is essential to account for the terminal benefits and family pension provided to the family while assessing their overall financial condition.
• Canara Bank maintained that the question of age relaxation arises only if the applicant is otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment and found suitable for the post. In this case, the respondent was not eligible due to the non-existence of indigent circumstances.

Arguments by Ajithkumar G.K.:

• Ajithkumar G.K. argued that the 1993 scheme did not contain any provision requiring consideration of the applicant’s family’s financial condition before granting employment on compassionate grounds.
• He contended that the bank’s objection to his overage was untenable, as it had not been consistently raised and was subject to res judicata due to the quashing of the initial rejection.
• Ajithkumar G.K. argued that the bank had the power to relax the age limit and failed to consider this power, rejecting his application solely based on the receipt of terminal benefits and family pension.
• He submitted that the bank did not make a bona fide assessment of the family’s financial condition and that the rejection was in contravention of the decision in Canara Bank v M Mahesh Kumar, where receipt of terminal benefits was held to be of no consequence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue framed by the Supreme Court for decision was:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was unjustified in not allowing the intra-court appeal of the appellant and in upholding the judgment of the Single Judge while directing the respondent’s appointment at a point of time when he was past 44 (forty-four) years of age.

The sub-issues that the court dealt with:

• Lapse of time since the respondent’s father passed away
• The real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment
• Whether there has been a proper and reasonable assessment of the financial condition of the family consequent upon death of the respondent’s father
• Assessment of the suitability of the claimant for compassionate appointment
• Whether relaxation in age ought to have been granted

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court considered various cases and legal provisions while arriving at its decision:

Cases Relied Upon:

• Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 (Supreme Court of India): Explained the rationale for compassionate appointment, emphasizing it as an exception to the rule of open recruitment.
• General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 (Supreme Court of India): Highlighted that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality in public employment.
• Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, (2002) 10 SCC 246 (Supreme Court of India): Stated that compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions.
• V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India, (2008) 13 SCC 730 (Supreme Court of India): Indicated that compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies: death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner.
• Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 (Supreme Court of India): Stressed that appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress.
• Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 11 SCC 453 (Supreme Court of India): Noted that rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door entry and must be given strict interpretation.
• SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560 (Supreme Court of India): Affirmed that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and the criteria in the Rules must be satisfied.
• State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600 (Supreme Court of India): Held that none can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance.
• Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 (Supreme Court of India): Stated that appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme.
• Union of India v. Amrita Sinha, (2021) 20 SCC 695 (Supreme Court of India): Held that any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family is legally impermissible.
• Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar, (2009) 13 SCC 112 (Supreme Court of India): Stated that the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
• Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 (Supreme Court of India): Affirmed that the object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased.
• Union of India v. B. Kishore, (2011) 13 SCC 131 (Supreme Court of India): Indicated that indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition.
• I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 (Supreme Court of India): Stated that the idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion.
• State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 (Supreme Court of India): Held that the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment.
• Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Supreme Court of India): Stated that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions.
• Canara Bank v M Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 (Supreme Court of India): Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance.
• National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 (Supreme Court of India): An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh, (1998) 5 SCC 452 (Supreme Court of India): Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered.
• General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 (Supreme Court of India): The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury.
• Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 (Supreme Court of India): Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated.
• Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350 (Supreme Court of India): Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated.
• National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487 (Supreme Court of India): Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated.
• Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 (Supreme Court of India): Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated.
• Somvir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2007) 4 SCC 778 (Supreme Court of India): The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury.
• Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, (2000) 6 SCC 493 (Supreme Court of India): The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment.
• State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 (Supreme Court of India): The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness.
• Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 (Supreme Court of India): Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration.
• SBI v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 (Supreme Court of India): Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions.
• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma, (2007) 8 SCC 148 (Supreme Court of India): An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy.
• Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 44 (Supreme Court of India): The case was required to be considered in terms of the Rules which were in existence in the year 2001.
• SBI v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 (Supreme Court of India): There is no vested right to have the matter considered under the former scheme and the governing scheme would be one which was in force when the applications came up for consideration.
• MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 (Supreme Court of India): There is no vested right to have the matter considered under the former scheme and the governing scheme would be one which was in force when the applications came up for consideration.
• State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600 (Supreme Court of India): Noticing the divergent views, the matter referred to a larger bench.
• N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 (Supreme Court of India): For consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment, the norms prevailing on the date the application is considered should be the basis for consideration.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 (Supreme Court of India): It is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.
• Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 (Supreme Court of India): The policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157 (Supreme Court of India): The policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
• Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P., (2003) 1 SCC 726 (Supreme Court of India): 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.
• Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638 (Supreme Court of India): The law which will be binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations of points raised and decided by the Court in a given case.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Ensures equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Article 141 of the Constitution of India: The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Grants High Courts the power to issue writs.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Canara Bank v M Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 (Supreme Court of India): The Court disagreed with the interpretation of paragraph 19 of this judgment by the High Court, emphasizing that the financial condition of the family is a crucial factor in determining compassionate appointment.
• Other cases: The Court relied on numerous precedents to establish the principles governing compassionate appointments, including the need to assess financial distress, the exceptional nature of such appointments, and the importance of adhering to the scheme’s objectives.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge of the High Court.

The Court directed Canara Bank to reconsider Ajithkumar G.K.’s application for compassionate appointment, taking into account:

• The financial condition of the family at the time of his father’s death.
• Whether the family was in indigence, warranting compassionate appointment.
• Whether Ajithkumar G.K. is suitable for the post.

The Court clarified that the issue of age relaxation is no longer open to be decided due to res judicata. However, it clarified that the question of relaxation would arise only when the claimant satisfies the other requirements of the scheme of 1993 for compassionate appointment.

The Court directed that the reconsideration process should be completed within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that in cases of compassionate appointment, the financial condition of the family and whether they are in a state of indigence must be assessed. The court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a means to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing destitution due to the sudden loss of its breadwinner. The suitability of the candidate for the post must also be considered.

Obiter Dicta

While the primary focus of the judgment was on the financial condition of the family and the suitability of the candidate, the Court also made several observations that can be considered obiter dicta:

• The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and should be granted only in cases of genuine hardship.
• The Court noted that the objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family to overcome the crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner, not to provide a lifelong source of income.
• The Court observed that the lapse of time between the death of the employee and the application for compassionate appointment should be taken into consideration, as the need for immediate assistance diminishes with time.

Dissenting Opinion

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra concurred.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. reinforces the importance of assessing the financial condition and indigence of the family when considering applications for compassionate appointment. The Court clarified that while terminal benefits and family pension should be taken into account, they are not the sole determinants. The objective is to provide immediate relief to families facing destitution, and the suitability of the candidate for the post is also a crucial factor. This judgment provides valuable guidance for employers and courts in handling compassionate appointment cases, ensuring that the scheme’s objectives are met while adhering to the principles of fairness and equality.