CANARABANK & Anr. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR

9S.C.R. 724 CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR (Civil Appeal No.260/2008 etc.) MAY 15, 2015 A B [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Service Law: C Appointment- Compassionate appointment- Claim for - Under compassionate appointment scheme of 1993 of the employer-Bank - Rejection of claim by the Bank - During pendency of the case for seeking consideration of the claim, compassionate appointment scheme replaced with the D scheme of'ex-gratia payment' of 2005- Entitlement to the claim of compassionate appointment - Held: Claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme In the present that came into force much after the claim - E case, cause of action arose when 1993 scheme was in force, hence the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme - The circular whereby 2005 scheme was brought in, being an administrative/executive order, cannot have retrospective F effect- Claimant's family getting family pension and terminal benefits is of no consequence in considering the application of compassionate appointment - Direction to Bank to consider the application of the claimant as per 1993 scheme. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:

TheobjectoftheSchemedatedS.05.1993 · vide Circular No.154/1993 for "compassionate appointment" is to help dependants of employees of the 724 G H CANARA BAN KAND ANR. v. M. MAH ESH KUMAR 725 employer-Bank· who die or become totally and A permanently disabled while in harness and to overcome the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income. The employment under the scheme will be considered only if there are indigent circumstances necessitating employment to B one of the dependants and the deceased employee's service record is unblemished. Mere eligibility will not vest a right for claiming employment. [Para 9] [732-H; 733-A-C] c

Claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. In the present case, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose D when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in force. Thus, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Scher:ne providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular dated 14.2.2005 being an administrati.\re or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take E away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993. [Paras 11and13] [734-G; 738-C-D]