Home / Current Affairs
Constitutional Law
Principles Relating to Compassionate Appointment
« »17-Feb-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice PK Mishra has summarized the principles relating to compassionate appointment.
- The Supreme Court held this in the case of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K (2025).
What was the Background of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K Case?
- A Canara Bank employee (father of Ajithkumar G.K.) passed away on 20th December 2001 while in service, with 4 months remaining before his retirement.
- At the time of death, Canara Bank had a compassionate appointment scheme from 1993 in force.
- Within a month of his father's death, defendant applied on 15th January 2002 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
- On 30th October 2002, the Deputy General Manager rejected his application citing two reasons:
- His mother was receiving family pension of Rs. 4,367.92.
- He was overaged for the post of "Prob. Peon".
- The scheme had an age limit of 26 years for both clerical and sub-staff positions, with provision for up to 5 years relaxation. The defendant was 26 years and 8 months old.
- The defendant requested reconsideration on 7th January 2003, which was rejected on 20th January 2003.
- His mother then made another request on 4th February 2003, citing that her deceased husband had served for over 24 years. This was also rejected on 18th February 2003.
- During the pending litigation, Canara Bank introduced a new scheme in 2005 that discontinued the 1993 policy of compassionate appointments and instead provided for lumpsum ex-gratia payment.
- The deceased employee's family situation at the time was:
- Three daughters who were already married and settled.
- Wife (mother) receiving family pension.
- One unmarried son (Ajithkumar).
- Family owned their house.
- Received terminal benefits of Rs. 3.09 lakhs (net after liabilities).
- Last drawn net salary of deceased was Rs. 9,772.
- High Court (Single Judge Bench) - First Round:
- Found that the Deputy General Manager's order rejecting a compassionate appointment was not in accordance with the 1993 scheme.
- Held that the bank failed to properly consider its power to relax age requirements under paragraph 5.1.
- Directed the bank to reconsider Ajithkumar's case taking into account:
- The 1993 scheme provisions.
- High Court (Single Judge Bench) - Second Round:
- Set aside the Managing Director's order rejecting the application.
- Directed Canara Bank to consider Ajithkumar for appointment under the 1993 scheme in sub-staff cadre within 2 months.
- Ordered payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the bank's reluctance in giving timely compassionate appointment.
- High Court (Division Bench):
- Dismissed the bank's appeal.
- Ordered additional exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs.
- Expressed astonishment at how the bank handled Ajithkumar's claim.
- Directed appointment in sub-staff category within one month.
- Found it "audacious" that the bank passed an order conflicting with Supreme Court's decision in M. Mahesh Kumar case.
- Criticized the bank for:
- Brushing aside age relaxation consideration.
- Using family pension as grounds for rejection despite it being held irrelevant.
- Rejecting the claim based on family pension and retirement benefits.
- This case has gone through multiple rounds of litigation from 2003 to 2025, moving through various courts and appeals.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Supreme Court made the following observations:
- Disagreed with High Court's reliance on Canara Bank v. M Mahesh Kumar case (2015).
- Found the MD & CEO's order refusing compassionate appointment was justified.
- Held that Division Bench shouldn't have overlooked suitability criteria while directing appointments.
- Set aside both Single Judge and Division Bench orders.
- Using Article 142 powers as per the Constitution of India, 1950, directed:
- Bank to pay Rs. 2.5 lakhs lumpsum to the defendant within 2 months.
- This would be in addition to Rs. 50,000 already paid.
- Made observations about:
- The necessity to examine financial conditions.
- The relevance of terminal benefits in assessing claims.
- The proper interpretation of age relaxation provisions.
- The timing of compassionate appointments.
- The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the 20+ year dispute by setting aside the High Court orders while ensuring some financial compensation for the defendant.
What is a Compassionate Appointment?
- Compassionate Appointment is a provision that allows family members (usually spouse, son, or daughter) of a government employee who dies while in service or retires on medical grounds to be given a job in government service.
- This is done to help the bereaved family cope with the financial crisis arising from the loss of the earning member.
What are the Principles Relating to Compassionate Appointment?
- Following are the 26 principles highlighted by the Supreme Court for Compassionate appointment:
- Compassionate appointments are an exception to equality in public employment rules.
- Such appointments cannot be made without proper rules or instructions in place.
- These appointments are typically offered in two situations: death of a breadwinner or their medical invalidation during service.
- The appointments should be made immediately to help families in a sudden financial crisis.
- Rules for compassionate appointments must be interpreted strictly as they allow side-door entry.
- It's a concession, not a right, and all applicants must meet the set criteria.
- No one can claim such appointments as inheritance.
- Appointment based on descent goes against constitutional principles and must be strictly limited to its intended purpose.
- These appointments aren't a vested right and require consideration of the family's financial condition.
- Applications must be made immediately or within a reasonable time after death/incapacitation.
- The purpose isn't to give the exact same post to a family member but to provide financial support.
- Financial need (indigence) is the primary requirement for consideration.
- Compassionate appointments aren't meant to provide endless support.
- Meeting eligibility criteria is necessary, beyond just proving financial distress.
- Vacancies cannot be reserved for minors to grow up, unless specifically provided for.
- Family pension or terminal benefits don't replace employment assistance.
- Appointments made years after death/incapacitation violate constitutional principles.
- Dependents who are already employed cannot be considered.
- Retirement benefits must be considered when determining the family's financial status.
- The family's complete financial condition must be evaluated to prevent misuse.
- All sources of family income should be considered when evaluating need.
- Family Benefit Scheme payments don't disqualify someone from compassionate appointments.
- Setting income limits helps ensure objectivity in decision-making.
- Courts cannot grant appointments based merely on sympathy.
- Courts must follow regulations and cannot make exceptions for hardship cases.
- Employers cannot be forced to make appointments against their policy.
Landmark cases referred in the Present Case
- Canara Bank v. M Mahesh Kumar (2015):
- Held that grant of family pension or terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for employment assistance.
- Minor dependents can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority if provided in the scheme.
- This judgment was later referred to larger bench.
- General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain (2008):
- Reinforced that compassionate appointments are exceptions to equality in public employment.
- Emphasized humanitarian grounds as basis for exception.
- Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi (2002):
- Established requirement for rules/instructions.
- Cannot make compassionate appointments without formal framework.
- Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997):
- Established fundamental rationale for compassionate appointments.
- Emphasized these are exceptions to regular merit-based recruitment.
- Main objective: Provide immediate relief to families in sudden crisis.
- Made clear it's not an alternative recruitment route.
- V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India (2008):
- Identified two valid exceptions for compassionate appointment:
- Death of breadwinner.
- Medical invalidation while in service.
- Identified two valid exceptions for compassionate appointment:
- Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989):
- Emphasized immediacy requirement.
- Appointments should be made promptly to address family's distress.
- Delay defeats purpose of scheme.
- Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009):
- Called for strict interpretation of rules.
- Being a side-door entry, rules cannot be loosely interpreted.
- SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008):
- Established compassionate appointment as concession, not right.
- All criteria in rules must be satisfied.
- State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009):
- Rejected inheritance-based claims
- Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as inheritance
- Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India (2011):
- Appointments based solely on descent violate constitutional scheme.
- Must be strictly confined to intended purpose.
- Union of India v. Amrita Sinha (2021):
- Rejected vested right concept.
- Financial condition must be considered.
- Cannot be granted automatically upon death/incapacitation.
- Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar (2009):
- Emphasized timely application.
- Delay in application creates presumption against financial need.
- Cannot be claimed after crisis period is over.
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994):
- The precedent establishing multiple principles:
- Not about post-for-post replacement.
- Must consider financial condition.
- Limited to Class III and IV posts.
- Cannot be granted as matter of course.
- The precedent establishing multiple principles:
- Union of India v. B. Kishore (2011):
- Established indigence as primary precondition.
- Without indigence, scheme becomes unconstitutional reservation.