The Apex Court stated that claims for compassionate appointments should only be considered in urgent situations.
The Supreme Court stated that claims for compassionate appointments should only be considered in “hand-to-mouth” situations, provided other requirements are met. This was highlighted in a Civil Appeal from Canara Bank against a decision by the Kerala High Court, which had dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal. Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that there is no one-size-fits-all rule for cases involving employees who die while in service. Each situation has unique aspects and should be assessed based on the family’s financial status. Only in “hand-to-mouth” cases should compassionate appointments be considered.
The Bench clarified that “hand-to-mouth” cases refer to families living below the poverty line and struggling to cover basic needs like food, rent, and utilities due to a lack of stable income. This situation is different from simply experiencing a decline in living standards after the loss of the main earner.
AOR Rajesh Kumar Gautam represented the Appellant, while AOR Mohammed Sadique T.A. represented the Respondent. The Respondent’s father died in 2001 while working for the Appellant-Bank, just four months before his retirement. At that time, a compassionate appointment scheme was active, as stated in a Circular from the Appellant. Within a month of his father’s death, the Respondent applied for a job under this scheme. In 2002, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank rejected the Respondent’s request, citing the family’s financial situation. The Respondent was over 26 years old, and according to the 1993 scheme, the age limit for clerical and sub-staff positions was 26 years. However, the scheme allowed for a relaxation of the age limit by up to 5 years. Although the Respondent was slightly over the age limit, the Bank did not grant him this relaxation.
The Respondent then requested a reconsideration, but the Divisional Manager stated they could not review his mother’s application. Consequently, the Respondent took his case to the High Court. Due to a shortage of judges nationwide, it took over ten years for the High Court to rule on the Writ Petition. In 2015, the Court allowed the Petition and instructed the Bank to reassess the Respondent’s case. The Bank reviewed the matter again but still denied the claim. The Respondent returned to the High Court, which ruled in his favor once more. The Bank challenged this decision with an Intra-Court Appeal, but the Division Bench dismissed it, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Bank. As a result, the Bank appealed to the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court observed that claims for compassionate appointments often take a long time to reach higher courts. Typically, the right to relief is based on when the person first approached the court. Even if legal relief is denied due to events that happen after the case starts, the law states that delays caused by the court process should not penalize the claimant.
The Court emphasized that it is not wise to dismiss a claim just because of the time taken by the courts to make a decision. However, if a claim is made late, the delay can be a significant reason to deny compassionate appointment, as it may suggest that the family does not urgently need financial help. The Court mentioned that what counts as a reasonable time depends on the specific rules for compassionate appointments. If there is a set time limit for applications and the claimant applies within that limit, then delays should not be a reason for rejection. The Court also pointed out that the Respondent’s father passed away in December 2001, and the Respondent should not be held responsible for the delay, as he was actively pursuing his claim with the Appellant and later with the High Court.
The Court stated that a respondent’s current age should not prevent them from having their claim considered on its merits. It emphasized the importance of examining the financial situation to determine if the respondent and their mother faced severe financial hardship due to the loss of their main provider. The Court noted that no dependent who meets all the criteria for compassionate appointment, including suitability, should be dismissed solely based on age. If the claimant’s age falls within the allowable limit, there is room for discretion in appropriate cases. The relaxation of age should be considered only at the final stages of the process, provided all other appointment conditions are met. If it is found that the deceased’s family is not in financial need, the process cannot move forward, making it pointless to discuss age relaxation.
Additionally, the Court explained that the Appellate Court’s authority is limited by law. Unless a case is exceptionally unique, the Appellate Court should not exercise powers similar to those granted by Order XLI Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The refusal of the MD & CEO to grant the respondent’s request for compassionate appointment was deemed reasonable and not subject to interference by the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Apex Court partially allowed the Appeal, overturned the previous Judgment, and instructed the Bank to pay the Respondent a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs within two 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.
