http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  743 of 2007

PETITIONER: State Bank of India & Anr

RESPONDENT: Somvir Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/2007

BENCH: H.K. Sema & B. Sudershan Reddy

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (Arising out of SLP(c) No. 802 of 2006)

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

       Leave granted.          The sole respondent is the son of Zile Singh who died while in  harness on May 5, 1998. He was serving as an Assistant (typist/clerk)  in the appellants-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as  appellant-Bank).  The respondent’s mother submitted an application  requesting the appellant-Bank for appointment of respondent by way  of compassionate appointment.  The respondent at the relevant time  was studying in his matriculation examination. The Zonal Office of the  appellant-Bank at Chandigarh required the family of the deceased  employee to furnish the details of assets/pension/loan/income and  other details as are required in order to consider the compassionate  appointment.  The same were furnished by the respondent.  The   Deputy General Manager  of the Bank submitted the proposal  for the  consideration of the Competent Authority in the printed format inter  alia indicating the details regarding the deceased employee, terminal  benefits, details of immovable property left behind him, investments  and liabilities  as well as pension paid. The Deputy General Manager  while forwarding the request for consideration  of the Chief General  Manager  observed that the family of late Zile Singh has reasonable  source of income to sustain itself and therefore, the request for  appointment on compassionate ground does not qualify for favourable  consideration.  No doubt, the Branch Manager where the deceased  employee was working recommended the case for appointment on  compassionate ground.  The Chief General Manager having regard to  the financial condition of the family found that the resources of the  family are adequate to meet its basic needs and accordingly rejected  the request for appointment on compassionate grounds.  The  Competent Authority  found that the financial condition of the family  does not justify any such appointment on compassionate grounds.   The order of the Chief General Manager  in detail reveals  that the  deceased employee was entitled to Rs. 03.15 lacs towards terminal  benefits and investments out of which Rs. 02.52 lacs were deducted  towards  the liabilities  leaving net surplus of Rs. 00.63 lacs.  The  monthly family income included family pension drawn from the Bank   at Rs. 2,214/- and income on agricultural land being Rs. 584/-.  The  family members are living in their own house.  The value of the  agricultural land possessed by the family has been fixed at Rs. 7 lacs.   It is under those circumstances the Bank found that the family of the  deceased employee had not been left in penury or without any means  of livelihood.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

       Challenging the order of rejection, the respondent filed a writ  petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court.  The Division Bench held  that  the income of Rs. 2,798/-  "could  not be treated to be an  amount for the family which could be termed as such amount to take  out the family from penury."  The High Court accordingly directed  the  appellant-Bank to reconsider the claim  of the petitioner  for  compassionate appointment keeping in view the entire facts and  circumstances of the case and the observations made  in the order.   The order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal.   

       In this appeal Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel  for the  appellant-Bank submitted that the High Court has committed  error in  directing the appellant-Bank  to reconsider the case of the respondent  on compassionate ground.  The High Court ought to have appreciated   that the provisions of the Scheme viz. compassionate appointment  applies only in cases wherein the deceased employee left the family in  penury and without any means of livelihood.  The monthly income  derived by the family and the immovable properties owned by it do not  justify any appointment on compassionate ground.  The  compassionate appointment can be made only  in accordance with the  scheme and there is no right to claim any appointment  de hors the  scheme.   The view taken by the appellant-Bank according to the  learned senior counsel to reject the claim of the respondent is in  conformity with the scheme.   

       Responding to the submissions made by the learned senior  counsel, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the  amount paid towards the terminal benefits and investments and the  family pension cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of  assessing as to whether dependants of deceased employee are left  without any means of livelihood.   

       We have given our earnest consideration to the rival submission  made during the course of hearing of this appeal.   

Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its  citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or  appointment to any office under the State.  Article 16(2) protects  citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office   under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent.  It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that  appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to  the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a  transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all  eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process.    Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open  invitation of applications and merit.  Dependants of employees died in  harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services  other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer.  

       In Umesh Kumar Nagpal  Vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4  SCC 138 ]  this Court held, "As a rule, appointments in the public  services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of  applications and merit.  No other mode of appointment nor any other  consideration is permissible.  Neither the Governments nor the public  authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the  qualifications laid down by the rules for the post.  However, to this  general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are  some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet  certain contingencies.  One such exception is in favour of the  dependants  of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in  penury and without any means of livelihood.  In such cases, out of  pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that  unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be  able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased  who may be eligible for such employment.  The whole object of  granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to  tide over  the sudden crisis.  The object is not to give a member of  such family a post much less a post held by the deceased." (emphasis  added)

        In Union Bank of India & Ors.  Vs.  M.T. Latheesh [ (2006)  7 SCC 350], this Court  while  dealing with the similar question  observed that indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate  grounds would shut the door for employment to the ever-growing  population of unemployed youth.  

       There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant-Bank is  required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only  in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such  left with any of the authorities to make compassionate  appointment  de hors the scheme.  In our considered opinion the claim  for  compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to  the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer  in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds.   There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate  appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by  the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be.  

       The scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased   employee on compassionate grounds framed by the appellant-Bank   inter alia provides that in making assessment of the financial condition  of the family which is an important criterion for determining the  eligibility  to compassionate appointment, the following factors are  required to be taken into consideration:  a)      Family pension b)      Gratuity amount received  c)      Employee’s/Employer’s contribution to Provident Fund d)      Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund e)      Proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments of the  deceased employee f)      Income for family from other sources  g)      Income  of other family members from employment or  otherwise  h)      Size of the family and liabilities, if any.  

The Competent Authority while considering the application had  taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly  found that the dependants of employee who died in harness are not in  penury and without any means of livelihood.  The Authority did not  commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments  and the monthly family  income including the family pension paid  by  the bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether  the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any  means of livelihood.  The scheme framed by the appellant-Bank in fact  mandates the Authority to take those factors into consideration.  The  Authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the  income of the family from other sources viz. the agricultural land.  

In our considered opinion the High Court itself could not have  undertaken any exercise to decide as to what would be the reasonable  income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival  and  whether it had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood.   The only question the High Court could have adverted itself is whether  the decision making process rejecting the claim of the respondent for  compassionate appointment  is vitiated?  Whether the order is not in  conformity with the scheme framed by the appellant-Bank?  It is not  even urged that the order passed by the Competent Authority is not in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

accordance with the scheme.  It is well settled that the hardship of the  dependant does not entitle one to compassionate appointment de hors  the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be.  The  income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into  consideration according to scheme which the High Court altogether  ignored while remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the  appellant-Bank.  It is not a case where the dependants of the  deceased employee are left ’without any means of livelihood’ and  unable to make both ends meet.  The High Court ought not to have  disturbed the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant- Bank that the respondent was not living hand to mouth. As observed  by this Court in General Manager (D&PB) and others Vs  Kunti  Tiwary and anr. [ (2004) 7 SCC 271], the High Court cannot dilute  the criteria ’of penury to one of’  "not very well-to-do".  The view  taken by the Division Bench of the High Court may amount to varying  the existing scheme framed by the appellant-Bank. Such a course is  impermissible in law.  

       For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal filed by  the appellant-Bank and set aside the order passed by the Division  Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  There shall be no  order as to costs.