Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 931 (ALL)

Tinku Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-07-14

AJAY BHANOT

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sagar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the respondent bank who died in harness on 12.04.2016. The claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds has been declined by the impugned order dated 14.09.2018. 3. The appointment on compassionate ground has been declined on the footing that the total income of the petitioner's family from all sources exceeds the threshold criteria of Rs. 35,000/- per month. Hence the family does not face financial destitution and the applicant is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Appointments to public posts, government services and to various instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are governed and regulated by comprehensive provisions contained in the Constitution. The constitutional scheme envisages an open recruitment and a transparent procedure which enables maximum participation from eligible segments of the citizenry at large. The final appointments are made after a fair selection based on competitive merit. While making the said appointments the reservation policy or affirmative action under the Constitution for representation and empowerment of backward classes, SCs/STs and other sections of the society identified as per law has to be duly adhered to. The recruitment and appointment to government services and government undertakings were examined by constitutional courts in the context of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Holdings of the constitutional courts have irretrievably entrenched the aforesaid modes and procedures for appointments to posts in the government and Article 12 instrumentalities in the body of the constitutional law. 6. On the contrary compassionate ground appointments are not made through a transparent and public process of recruitment after inviting the applications from the open market. The appointments on compassionate ground entail deviation from regular processes of recruitment, and are an exception to the aforesaid constitutionally mandated scheme for appointments to posts in the government and in government undertakings. Compassionate appointments emanate from specific service rules holding the field and have been rationalized by service law jurisprudence evolved by Constitutional Courts. 7. The appointments on compassionate ground passed the test of constitutional validity by a slender margin. Compassionate appointments emanate from specific service rules holding the field and have been rationalized by service law jurisprudence evolved by Constitutional Courts. 7. The appointments on compassionate ground passed the test of constitutional validity by a slender margin. Dependents of a deceased employee face unforeseen financial destitution after the death of the latter and need urgent succour. Compassionate appointments are made only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the earning member of the family. This feature alone constituted the dependent kin of a deceased employee into one class and on this sole footing the rationale of compassionate ground appointments was justified by Constitutional Courts. 8. The discussion has the benefit of authorities in point. 9. Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana , 1994 (4) SCC 138 explained the purpose of compassionate in following terms: "2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. 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 interests 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 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 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 for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." 10. A similar sentiment was echoed by the Supreme Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, 1998 (5) SCC 192 "8.The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to 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 for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee……." 11. This Court in Roopam Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 others, Writ A No. 15512 of 2019 held as under: “16. The purpose of compassionate appointments provides their justification. The death of a bread winner forces the family of the deceased into penury. The immediacy of the financial crisis creates the requirement for urgent redressal. The concept of compassionate appointments is created only to enable the bereaved family to tide over the immediate financial crisis”. 12. The need to make appointments on compassionate grounds in conformity with the Rules governing the grant of such appointments was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. The concept of compassionate appointments is created only to enable the bereaved family to tide over the immediate financial crisis”. 12. The need to make appointments on compassionate grounds in conformity with the Rules governing the grant of such appointments was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. Somyashree, Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021 by summarizing the law as follows: “7…...(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule; (ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment; (iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy (v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.” 13. Similarly, the necessity to strictly adhere to rules relating to compassionate grounds was succinctly summarized by the Calcutta High Court in Ipsita Chakrabarti v. State of West Bengal , 2018 (2) Cal LT 177 (HC) . Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra) upon consideration of holdings of various Constitutional Courts held: “(a) Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception craved 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. (b) The right of a dependent of an employee who died in harness for compassionate appointment is based on the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer and there is no right to claim compassionate appointment on any other ground apart from the above scheme conferred by the employer. (c) Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seems to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. (c) Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seems to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. (d) Compassionate appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family.” 14. Furthermore, the Calcutta High Court in Sri Bijon Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal and others , 2018 (3) Cal LT 136 (HC) again stated what is by now the settled position of law that the appointments on compassionate ground must be made only in conformity with the specific rules applicable to the employee : “26. After observing the ratio and the legal positions contended by the Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties as well as the precedents examined above, I am persuaded to opine that appointment on compassionate grounds seeks to relieve the immediate financial hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased. It acts as an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the defendant are given preferential appointment ahead of other equally meritorious candidates similarly placed and hence it cannot be claimed as a right. With the object of appointment on compassionate grounds in mind, it is palpably clear to me that this appointment must be done in accordance with the rules for such appointment. The dependant seeking such appointment must be eligible for such consideration and facing financial hardship to the extent delineated by the rules." 15. Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra) and Sri Bijon Mukherjee (supra) were followed by the Calcutta High Court in Ankita Saha and Anr. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. , WPA No. 12287 of 2019 (Calcutta High Court) 16. The concept of compassionate ground appointments is a welfare measure taken by a model employer. The provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment has to be interpreted in order to reach the beneficient measures to the eligible candidates. The authorities have to implement the said scheme to effectuate the benign intent of the scheme of compassionate appointments. However, there is a caution. The provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment has to be interpreted in order to reach the beneficient measures to the eligible candidates. The authorities have to implement the said scheme to effectuate the benign intent of the scheme of compassionate appointments. However, there is a caution. An overliberal interpretation of the right to the appointments on compassionate ground will open a floodgate of such appointments and turn them into a veritable source of recruitment. An unjustified generous approach in compassionate ground which is not consistent with the applicable service rules will confer benefits to underserving and ineligible candidates, and simultaneously deny the constitutional rights and legal claims of eligible and meritorious candidates from getting appointment to government posts. Treating compassionate ground appointments as an unconditional and vested right and making it a source of recruitment will shear the thin veil of legality which protects such appointments from the vice of unconstitutionality. In these circumstances very concept of appointments on compassionate grounds will then be exposed to the wrath of Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. The purpose of grant of compassionate ground appointments can be subserved and their constitutionality can be saved only by strict compliance of the rules governing the grant of compassionate ground appointments. 18. The preceding discussion discloses that determination of the financial condition or the nature of financial crises being faced by the family caused by the death of employee is thus a mandatory pre condition for appointment on compassionate grounds. 19. The importance of assessing the financial condition of the family of deceased was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and others Vs Parden Oraon , (2021) 16SCC 384 by holding thus: “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family 1. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family 1. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 20. Financial penury has not been defined in the holdings of various constitutional courts. The same has to be examined in light of facts of each case and applicable provisions of law. 21. In the respondent bank appointments on compassionate grounds are governed and regulated under the Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds holding the field. The eligibility criteria provided in the Scheme is extracted hereunder: "6. Eligibility criteria: a. The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Accordingly, appointment on compassionate grounds will be granted to deserving cases where the total income of the family from all sources is below Rs. 35,000/-per month. b. Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules." 22. Clause 6 of the said scheme provides for a sound and a rationale criteria for determining the financial condition of the family of the deceased and to make a finding on eligibility for grant of compassionate appointment. 23. The manner of computation of income of the family of the deceased is provided in sub clause (h) of clause 22 of the aforesaid scheme. The provision is extracted hereunder: “ h . Total monthly income of the family from all sources: Item Description i. Monthly interest on Net Assets @ Max. Interest rate applicable to general public as on date of death. ii. Monthly pension from the Bank (of deceased) iii. Monthly income of family members. iv. The provision is extracted hereunder: “ h . Total monthly income of the family from all sources: Item Description i. Monthly interest on Net Assets @ Max. Interest rate applicable to general public as on date of death. ii. Monthly pension from the Bank (of deceased) iii. Monthly income of family members. iv. Monthly income from any other source Total (H) 24. The exercise to determine the financial status of the family after death of the employee has been undertaken by the bank. 25. The impugned order dated 14.09.2018 has found that the monthly income of the family is Rs. 55,783/-, which is more than ceiling income of Rs. 35,000/ p.m. The manner of calculation of the total monthly by the Bank is extracted hereunder; 01 Monthly notional interest income on terminal benefits and investment proceeds Rs. 5,825.00 02 Monthly pension from the Bank (of deceased) Rs. 13,344.00 03 Monthly Income of the dependant family members (Son) Rs. 36,614.00 Total Monthly Income Rs. 55,783.00 26. While calculating the monthly income of the family of the deceased drawn from all sources, the income of one son of the deceased who is employed as constable in the CISF has also been included. According to the petitioners the aforesaid son of the deceased resides separately with his family and does not support or maintain the family of the deceased. Hence the income of the aforesaid earning member of the deceased’s family was not liable to be computed towards the monthly family income. Further the petitioner also claims that he was solely dependent on his father. 27. According to the learned counsel for the Bank financial hardship and the income of the family was computed in light of relevant clauses of the Scheme quoted hereunder: “ 13. Further the petitioner also claims that he was solely dependent on his father. 27. According to the learned counsel for the Bank financial hardship and the income of the family was computed in light of relevant clauses of the Scheme quoted hereunder: “ 13. Where there is an earning member in a family: a. In deserving cases, even when there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with the prior approval of the Competent Authority of the Bank who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified, having regard to the number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the employee, income of the earning member, as also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the employee and whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family. b. In cases where any member of the family of the deceased or medically retired employee is already in employment and is not supporting the other members of the family of the deceased employee, extreme caution has to be observed in ascertaining the economic distress of the members of the family of the deceased employee so that, the facility of appointment on compassionate ground is not circumvented and misused by putting forward the ground that the member of the family already employed is not supporting the family.” 21: General c. An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc.” 28. The aforesaid clauses have to be interpreted in light of the purposes to be subserved by appointment under the compassionate grounds and to implement the intent of the beneficent provisions. The respondents have to diligently consider only relevant factors while determining the financial status of the family and consciously exclude irrelevant consideration. The aforesaid clauses have to be interpreted in light of the purposes to be subserved by appointment under the compassionate grounds and to implement the intent of the beneficent provisions. The respondents have to diligently consider only relevant factors while determining the financial status of the family and consciously exclude irrelevant consideration. The aim of exercise is to ensure that lawful benefits accrue to legible claimants, while unlawful claims do not pass muster. 29. While determining the income of the family under the said scheme the authority has to examine as to whether the son/family member of the deceased who is gainfully employed is maintaining the dependents of the deceased or not. If the member of the family who is gainfully employed has no connection with the dependents of the deceased or does not cater to their financial needs or fails to maintain them, the said employment shall not influence the decision for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. Any contrary interpretation will defeat the purpose of grant of compassionate grounds appointment. 30. In the instant case, a specific ground has been taken that the son of the deceased who is employed in CISF is not maintaining the family. According to the petitioner his income could not be included in the income of the family which was computed by the bank authorities. However, these material aspects were not considered while passing the impugned order. 31. The impugned orders dated 29.08.2018 and 14.09.2018 neglect to consider the aforesaid germane aspects while invalidating the claim of the petitioners. The impugned orders dated 29.08.2018 and 14.09.2018 are vitiated on account of non application of mind to relevant consideration. 32. In this wake, the impugned orders dated 29.08.2018 and 14.09.2018 are quashed. 33. The matter is remitted to the respondents-authorities who shall decide the claim of the petitioner after considering all relevant factors including the financial condition of the family of the deceased in light of above observations and as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 34. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.