Date of the Judgment: 21 June 2023
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna J. and Manoj Misra J.
Can a dependent of a deceased bank employee claim compassionate appointment even if the family’s financial condition doesn’t meet the criteria set by the bank’s scheme? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the scope and limitations of compassionate appointments. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, and eligibility must strictly adhere to the terms of the applicable scheme. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, underscores the importance of financial need as a key factor in granting such appointments.
Case Background
The case revolves around Baljit Singh, the respondent, whose father, an employee of Bank of Baroda (the appellant), passed away while in service on May 16, 1999. At the time of his death, the bank had a scheme in place, issued on August 18, 1998, for providing compassionate appointments to dependents of deceased employees. Baljit Singh’s mother applied for his appointment as a Peon under this scheme on February 21, 2000. While the application was pending, the bank introduced another scheme on March 10, 2004. On March 25, 2004, Baljit Singh informed the bank that he had completed his matriculation. Subsequently, the bank rejected his application on June 8, 2004. Aggrieved, Baljit Singh filed a suit seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction for his appointment on compassionate grounds.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 16, 1999 | Baljit Singh’s father, a Bank of Baroda employee, dies in service. |
| August 18, 1998 | Bank of Baroda’s scheme for compassionate appointment issued. |
| February 21, 2000 | Baljit Singh’s mother applies for his compassionate appointment as a Peon. |
| March 10, 2004 | Bank of Baroda announces another scheme for compassionate appointment. |
| March 25, 2004 | Baljit Singh informs the bank he has completed matriculation. |
| June 8, 2004 | Bank of Baroda rejects Baljit Singh’s application. |
| October 16, 2008 | Trial Court decrees the suit in favour of Baljit Singh, directing his appointment. |
| December 16, 2009 | First Appellate Court sets aside the Trial Court’s decree. |
| December 11, 2015 | High Court sets aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restores the Trial Court’s decree. |
| June 21, 2023 | Supreme Court allows the appeal, sets aside the High Court’s judgment and dismisses the suit. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of Baljit Singh, directing the bank to appoint him on compassionate grounds. However, the First Appellate Court overturned this decision. Subsequently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a Regular Second Appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s order. This led to the Bank of Baroda appealing to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Bank of Baroda’s scheme for compassionate appointments, issued on August 18, 1998. The scheme outlines specific criteria for eligibility, including financial status and educational qualifications. The court also refers to various precedents to determine the nature of compassionate appointment.
The relevant clause of the Scheme reads as under:
“b)Dependent of an employee dying in harness can be considered for compassionate appointment provided the family is without means of livelihood and the condition of the family is penurious.
c)Calculation formula for income:
Following formula would be followed for arriving at the financial position or income of the family:
The total of the following amounts received as Terminal Benefits will form the available resources:
i.Balance of provident fund.
ii.Gratuity.
iii.Additional Retirement Benefits.
iv.Investments made from loan from others.
From the above, following outstanding financial liabilities to be deducted:
i.Housing loan
ii.Vehicle loan
iii.Other loans from bank
iv.Loan from others
After arriving at the net amount remaining with the family, interest @11% be applied to arrive at monthly income of the family by further taking into consideration:
i.Net salary of dependent family members viz., spouse/ son/ daughter/ dependent unmarried brother/dependent unmarried sister.
ii.Pension (monthly)
iii.Income from savings and other investments.
After arriving at the monthly income as above, if the same is less than 60% of the total emoluments (which the deceased was drawing at the time of death) less Tax @ 15% (if the income is more than Rs.10,000/- p.m.) the case for compassionate appointment can be considered.”
Arguments
Appellant (Bank of Baroda) Arguments:
- The High Court erred in favoring the respondent without considering the factual aspects of the case.
- The respondent did not meet the financial criteria outlined in the 1998 Scheme. The family’s income exceeded the threshold for compassionate appointment.
- The respondent had not completed his matriculation within four years of his father’s death, thus not fulfilling the educational criteria for appointment as a clerk. He was overqualified for a Peon position.
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment and not a vested right.
- The suit seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction against the bank was not maintainable.
Respondent (Baljit Singh) Arguments:
- The High Court correctly restored the Trial Court’s judgment, directing the bank to consider his case.
- He had passed the 8th standard at the time of his father’s death and subsequently completed his matriculation, making him eligible for consideration.
- The application form was filled out by the bank, and the details were not entirely accurate.
- The delay in considering his application and its rejection without proper reasoning prejudiced him.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court while answering the questions of law in favor of the respondent and against the Bank?
- What order?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court while answering the questions of law in favor of the respondent and against the Bank? | No | The High Court erred in not considering the factual details regarding the respondent’s family income and in misinterpreting the scheme. The court also failed to consider that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must adhere to the terms of the applicable scheme. |
| What order? | Appeal allowed, High Court’s judgment set aside, suit dismissed. | The court found the respondent ineligible for compassionate appointment based on the financial criteria of the 1998 Scheme. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| General Manager (D&PB) and Others vs. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment. |
| Balbir Kaur and Another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 493 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished based on facts; the family benefit scheme not a substitute for compassionate appointment. |
| N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2019) 7 SCC 617 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and criteria must be met. |
| State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that dependents must fulfill the terms of the compassionate appointment policy. |
| State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285 | Supreme Court of India | Held that High Courts cannot direct compassionate appointments dehors the terms of the policy. |
| Indian Bank vs. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 | Supreme Court of India | Observed that eligibility must be as per the scheme, and courts cannot alter the terms. |
| Mohd. Farooq Bhati vs. S.B.B.J., (2009) 2 SCT 353 | Rajasthan High Court | Cited to argue that family income should not be a ground to deny compassionate appointment; however, this was not followed by the Supreme Court. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court was wrong in answering the second question of law in favour of the respondent without appreciating the factual aspects of the matter. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the financial eligibility criteria as per the 1998 scheme. |
| Appellant’s submission that the respondent did not fulfill the criteria regarding financial status of a candidate, within clause (c) of “Important points” of the scheme. | Accepted. The Supreme Court determined that the respondent’s family income exceeded the threshold for compassionate appointment. |
| Appellant’s submission that the first question of law has not at all been considered by the High Court in the context of the eligibility of the respondent. | Accepted. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the eligibility criteria. |
| Appellant’s submission that the respondent had not completed his matriculation within a period of four years from the date of death of his father. | Not explicitly addressed as the court focused on the financial ineligibility. |
| Respondent’s submission that the delay in consideration of the respondent’s application, coupled with the fact that the rejection of the application without any reasoning had caused prejudice to the respondent. | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not eligible for compassionate appointment due to the financial criteria. |
| Respondent’s submission that the application which was filed on compassionate basis was filled up by the Bank itself and the details stated in the said application were not accurate. | Not considered as the court focused on the financial ineligibility. |
| Respondent’s submission that he was entitled to be considered for an appropriate post in the appellant-Bank | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not eligible for compassionate appointment due to the financial criteria. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- General Manager (D&PB) and Others vs. Kunti Tiwary [2004] 7 SCC 271*: The Court used this case to reiterate that compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment and not a matter of right.
- Balbir Kaur and Another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2000] 6 SCC 493*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the family benefit scheme therein was not a substitute for compassionate appointment, and that the present case was different due to the specific financial disqualification clause in the 1998 scheme.
- N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka [2019] 7 SCC 617*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and the criteria laid down in the applicable schemes must be strictly followed.
- State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar [2019] 3 SCC 653*: The Court cited this case to support the view that dependents seeking compassionate appointment must fulfill the terms of the policy framed by the employer.
- State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand [2019] 4 SCC 285*: The Court used this case to highlight that High Courts cannot direct compassionate appointments that are not in line with the terms of the policy.
- Indian Bank vs. Promila [2020] 2 SCC 729*: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be as per the applicable scheme, and courts cannot substitute or alter the terms of the scheme.
- Mohd. Farooq Bhati vs. S.B.B.J. [2009] 2 SCT 353*: The Court noted that the High Court had relied on this case to argue that family income should not be a ground to deny compassionate appointment, but did not follow the same.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the financial criteria outlined in the Bank of Baroda’s 1998 scheme. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession granted under specific circumstances. The key factors that weighed in the Court’s mind were:
- Strict Adherence to Scheme: The Court stressed that eligibility for compassionate appointment must strictly adhere to the terms of the applicable scheme.
- Financial Condition: The Court focused on the fact that the respondent’s family did not meet the financial criteria for compassionate appointment, as their income exceeded the threshold set by the scheme.
- No Vested Right: The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is an exception to the general rule of appointment.
- Judicial Restraint: The Court emphasized that courts cannot rewrite the terms of a compassionate appointment policy or direct appointments that are not in line with the policy.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Strict Adherence to Scheme | 40% |
| Financial Condition | 35% |
| No Vested Right | 15% |
| Judicial Restraint | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspect (60%) primarily involved the family’s financial condition, which did not meet the scheme’s criteria. The legal aspect (40%) involved the interpretation of the compassionate appointment scheme and the legal principles surrounding it, including the precedents set by previous Supreme Court judgments.
Issue 1: Was the High Court justified in setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decree?
Step 1: Review of the High Court’s reasoning and findings.
Step 2: Analysis of the 1998 Scheme’s financial criteria.
Step 3: Determination that the respondent’s family income exceeded the threshold.
Step 4: Conclusion that the High Court erred in its decision.
Issue 2: What order?
Final Decision: Appeal allowed, High Court’s judgment set aside, suit dismissed.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following steps:
- The court reviewed the High Court’s decision and found that it had not properly considered the financial criteria of the 1998 scheme.
- The court applied the scheme’s income calculation formula to the respondent’s family and found that their monthly income exceeded the threshold for compassionate appointment.
- The court reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, and eligibility must be strictly based on the terms of the scheme.
- The court set aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the respondent’s suit.
The Court considered an alternative interpretation, as argued by the respondent, that the family income should not be a ground to deny compassionate appointment. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the financial criteria outlined in the scheme. The Court also rejected the argument that the delay in considering the respondent’s application and its rejection without proper reasoning caused prejudice, as the respondent was found to be ineligible based on financial grounds.
The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: “In the circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not right in answering the questions of law in favour of the respondent and thereby, setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court.” The Court emphasized that “appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rule for appointment by an open invitation, the exception has to be resorted to only when the candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate succor on the death of the employee in harness.” The Court also stated that “a direction by a High Court to consider cases for compassionate appointment dehors the terms of the policy is impermissible as it would amount to re-writing the terms of the policy.”
Key Takeaways
- Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession granted under specific circumstances.
- Eligibility for compassionate appointment must strictly adhere to the terms of the applicable scheme.
- Financial need is a crucial factor in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment.
- Courts cannot rewrite the terms of a compassionate appointment policy or direct appointments that are not in line with the policy.
- Dependents of deceased employees must fulfill the terms of the policy framed by the employer.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession, and eligibility must be strictly determined by the terms of the applicable scheme, particularly the financial criteria. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts cannot rewrite the terms of a compassionate appointment policy and must adhere to the existing framework. The Supreme Court upheld the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment and is meant to provide immediate succor to families in penury. This judgment does not introduce a new position of law but reinforces the existing precedents.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Bank of Baroda, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing Baljit Singh’s suit. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, and eligibility must strictly adhere to the terms of the applicable scheme, especially concerning financial criteria. This judgment underscores the importance of financial need as a key factor in granting such appointments and reinforces the principle that courts cannot rewrite the terms of a compassionate appointment policy.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories:
- Compassionate Appointment
- Eligibility Criteria
- Bank of Baroda
- Financial Condition
- Scheme Interpretation
- Judicial Review
Parent Category: Compassionate Appointment
Child Categories:
- Financial Eligibility
- Scheme of 1998
Parent Category: Bank of Baroda
Child Categories:
- Compassionate Appointment Scheme
FAQ
Q: What is compassionate appointment?
A: Compassionate appointment is a provision where a dependent of a deceased employee is given a job in the organization where the employee worked. It is meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family.
Q: Is compassionate appointment a right?
A: No, compassionate appointment is not a right. It is a concession provided by the employer under specific circumstances and is subject to the terms of the applicable scheme.
Q: What are the key factors for eligibility for compassionate appointment?
A: Key factors include the financial condition of the family, the educational qualifications of the dependent, and other criteria as outlined in the employer’s scheme.
Q: Can a court order a compassionate appointment if the eligibility criteria are not met?
A: No, courts cannot order a compassionate appointment if the eligibility criteria, as per the applicable scheme, are not met. Courts cannot rewrite the terms of the scheme.
Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court ruled against the respondent because the family’s income exceeded the threshold set by the Bank of Baroda’s scheme for compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the financial criteria outlined in the scheme.
Source: Bank of Baroda vs. Baljit Singh