OF 20091.Reserve Bank of India v. N. KanniammalW/o. Late P. Narayanaswamy

For Appellants: Mr.R. Krishnamurthy Senior Counsel for Mr.T. PoornamFor Respondent: Mr.S. Anil SandeepJ U D G M E N TP.K. MISRA, JThe present appeal is filed by the Reserve Bank of Indiaagainst the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5957 of 2001,wherein the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petitionfiled by the present Respondent, had issued a direction to thepresent appellants to provide compassionate appointment to the son ofthe present Respondent as Class-IV employee.2. The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:-The husband of the writ petitioner, who was employed under theReserve Bank of India, died in harness on 20.6.1991 leaving behindthe widow - writ petitioner, one minor son and two minor daughters.The writ petitioner filed an application on 4.9.1991 requesting forappointment of her son in the Bank on compassionate ground. The Bankby its letter dated 7.9.1991, advised the writ petitioner to fileappropriate application after the son becomes major. Subsequently,on 15.4.1994, after the son of the writ petitioner had attainedmajority, she made a fresh representation to the Bank for givingemployment to her son on compassionate ground by referring to earlierapplication dated 4.9.1991 and the reply of the Bank, dated 7.9.1991.With reference to the above representation, the Bank called upon thewrit petitioner to furnish particulars and apparently vide letterdated 10.5.1994, details were furnished. Along with such letter, awritten memo was furnished by the son of the writ petitionerrequesting for appointment and undertaking to lookafter the familymembers. While the matter stood thus, the Reserve Bank of Indiaformulated a Scheme relating to appointment on compassionate ground,which envisaged offer of employment to the widow of the concernedemployee of the Bank or payment of lumpsum amount as ex-gratiapayment. On the basis of such Scheme, the Bank communicated to thewrit petitioner vide letter dated 20.6.1995 that the request forappointment of her son on compassionate ground cannot be entertainedin view of the Scheme adopted by the Bank. However, it was indicatedthat the Bank was prepared to offer lumpsum ex-gratia payment ofRs.75,740/-. The writ petitioner issued a reply stating that deathof her husband had taken place on 20.6.1991 and, therefore, theapplication should be considered on the basis of the Rules applicable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at the time of such death. It was further indicated that she herselfwas not in a position to take up any employment as she was requiredto take care of her handicapped daughter and again requested forgiving employment to her son. The Bank by its further correspondencedated 16.4.1997 reiterated the earlier position and expressed itsinability to offer any employment to the son on the basis ofcompassionate appointment, but advised the writ petitioner to acceptthe lumpsum ex-gratia amount of Rs.75,740/-. Undaunted by suchrefusal, the writ petitioner made a further representation on3.4.2000 for employment of her son on compassionate ground, which wasagain rejected by the Bank vide correspondence dated 8.6.2000.Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a representation dated15.9.2000 by referring to the decision dated 28.9.1999 in W.P.No.8284of 1995 (P. Vijayalakshmi v. Reserve Bank of India) and made arequest for re-consideration of the matter and to give employment toher son as similar matter had been decided by the High Court. Suchrequest was again rejected by the Bank vide letter dated 19.9.2000and the writ petitioner was again advised to apply for payment of thelumpsum. Ultimately, W.P.No.5957 of 2001 was filed by the wife ofthe deceased employee praying that the letter dated 19.9.2000 shouldbe quashed and direction should be issued to the Bank for givingemployment to the son of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground.3. In the writ petition, the Bank took the stand that atthe time of initial application, the son of the writ petitioner beinga minor was not at all eligible to be considered and at that time thewidow of the employee had been advised to file fresh representationafter attainment of majority by the son. It was specificallyindicated that such application would be considered according to theScheme applicable at the time of application. It was furtherhighlighted that the question of formulating a particular scheme wasunder active consideration of the Bank and, therefore, manyapplications in respect of the employees who had died after 1.1.1992had been kept pending for being finalised in accordance with theScheme under preparation and as per such Scheme formulated on28.10.2004, the opportunity of employment can be offered only to thewidow of the deceased employee and, in lieu of employment, ex-gratiapayment can be made and since the son of the writ petitioner cannotbe considered on the basis of such Scheme, the application had beenspecifically rejected in the year 1995. There was no right availableto the son of the deceased to claim employment and moreover the writpetition was filed in the year 2001, whereas the death had occurredin 1991 and the application had been rejected in 1995 and, therefore,the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.4. Learned single Judge by relying upon the earlierdecision of the High Court in W.P.No.8284 of 1995, negatived thecontention of the writ petitioner and had issued a specific directionto the Bank to give employment to the son of the writ petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The present writ appeal is filed against such direction issued by thelearned single Judge.5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank has raisedthe following contentions :-(1) As per the Scheme, which was circulated in October, 1994,the opportunity of employment can be offered only to the widow of thedeceased employee and, therefore, the Bank had rightly rejected theapplication of the widow regarding employment of her son oncompassionate ground.(2) The writ petition should have been dismissed on the groundof laches.(3) At any rate, the learned single Judge erred in giving apositive direction to the Bank to give employment to the son of thewrit petitioner, even though no such right was conferred either underthe Scheme circulated on 28.10.1994 or even under the previousinstructions.(4) The Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is framedonly to enable the family members of the deceased to tide over theimmediate need of the family members and since the death had occurredin 1991 and the application had been rejected in 1995, issuing adirection for giving employment in 2009, after passage of about 18years, does not subserve the purpose of the Scheme. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writpetitioner, on the other hand, supported the reasonings given in thejudgment and has submitted that in view of the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned singleJudge should be upheld.7. Counsels for both the parties have cited severaldecisions of the Supreme Court which would be noticed in due course.But, before adverting to such decisions, it may be necessary to referto the relevant correspondence and the provisions contained in theScheme.8. The Bank has placed reliance upon the Circular dated28.10.1994. In substance, such Scheme provides for either payment oflumpsum ex-gratia to the members of the bereaved family orappointment in the Bank for the spouse of the deceased employee asper the norms laid down by the Bank. If the option is for payment oflumpsum ex-gratia, such amount may be sanctioned by the concernedManager of the Branch. However, if applications are received fromthe spouses seeking appointment in the Bank, such applications arerequired to be forwarded to the Central Office along with allnecessary particulars. The Scheme makes it clear that theapplication for seeking appointment for any member of the familyother than the spouse ought to be rejected. So far as Clause 7 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the scheme relating to appointment being relevant, is extractedhereunder :-"7. There will be no deferment of employment on anyground. However, old cases where deferment was granted foremployment of a ward will be treated as exception and dealtwith as per the Bank's advice then given."The scheme contemplated that "cases which are kept pending fordecision will be decided as per the above Scheme".9. Though the learned counsel for the Bank has submittedthat before the aforesaid Scheme there was no other specific Schemeapplicable to the Bank, learned counsel for the respondent / writpetitioner has produced a Circular No.15, dated 21.7.1988, whereinthere is reference to earlier Circular D.A.No.Rec.772/2(A)-85/86,dated 1st November, 1985, a copy of whereof has been subsequentlyproduced by the Bank. The letter dated 1.11.1985 inter aliaindicates as under:-"2. In view of the above, we advise that in futurewhile referring such cases the offices/departments may noteto include the following details/documents invariably in therelevant applications:i.service file of the late employee with up-to-datereports;ii.cause of death of the employee and a copy of hisdeath certificate;iii.particulars of other family members with regard totheir income, if any whether any of the family membersis already in the Bank's service;iv.details of terminal benefits paid/to be paid and nameof the beneficiary thereto;v.certified true copies in support of applicant's age,educational qualification; and vi.vacancy position in the cadre for which the applicantis being considered.3. Offices may appreciate that it will be conducive tospeedy disposal of applications at Central Office if onobtention of the relevant details/documents as desiredabove, they note to add a line by way of specificrecommendation based on a preliminary scrutiny of therelevant application justifying the need for compassionparticularly in the case of families that are apparently notin hard financial straits."10. The subsequent circular dated 21.7.1988, afterreferring to the earlier circular dated 1.11.1985, advised all theManagers and Departmental Heads in the following manner :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ". . . To tide over this undesirable situation, it hasbeen decided that offices / departments may hereafterfurnish to us all the relevant particulars in enclosedproforma, duly supported by authenticated copies of thedocuments mentioned in the above circular wherevernecessary. While forwarding such requests, the Manager /Departmental Head should invariably give his specificrecommendations based on a careful scrutiny, justifying theneed for compassion, particularly in the cases of familiesthat are apparently well off."The Circular further provided :-"3. We add for further guidance that on receipt of theCentral Office approval the offices may identify thecandidate before offering the appointment and again checkthat no other member of the family of the deceased employeeis already in the service of the Bank. If the widow of thedeceased has recommended one of her children forcompassionate appointment a declaration from her and anyother major child in the family may be obtained to theeffect that they would not stake claim for such appointmentin future on compassionate grounds."The annexure to such Circular contain the pro-forma in whichvarious particulars of the deceased employee were required to befurnished.11. Relying upon such Circular dated 21.7.1988, learnedcounsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that beforeintroduction of this Scheme on 28.10.1994, the aforesaid Circular wasrequired to be followed. It is therefore submitted by him that sincethe employee died in harness on 20.6.1991 and since the subsequentScheme dated 28.10.1994 was avowedly made applicable to death whichhad taken place after 1.1.1992, the representation made by the writpetitioner for employment of her son on compassionate grounds shouldhave been considered in accordance with the Circular which wasapplicable at the time of death of the employee and suchrepresentation should not have been rejected on the basis of theScheme which was formulated much later.12. If the Circular dated 28.10.1994 is made applicable,obviously the representation of the present writ petitioner prayingfor employment of her son on compassionate ground could not have beencountenanced as the Scheme dated 28.10.1994 categorically envisagesthat the opportunity of employment on compassionate grounds can beavailed only by the spouse of the deceased employee and in thealternative a lumpsum would be paid to the members of the bereavedfamily. Learned single Judge, however, has observed that this Schemeas such was not applicable, particularly in view of the provisionscontained in clause 7 of the Scheme which specifically envisage that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there would be no deferment of employment on any ground, but oldcases where deferment was granted for employment of a ward will betreated as exception and dealt with as per the Bank's advice thengiven.13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to theapplication and the advise given by the Bank. The application, dated4.9.1991, made by the writ petitioner indicated that her elder sonwas aged 15 years and the two daughters were aged 12 and 11 years andshe herself was not in a position to take employment as she wasrequired to take care of her daughter who was physically handicappedTherefore, it was requested by her ". . . . My eldest son Shri N.Kuppuswamy is aged 15 years only and is studying in X Standard. Hewill be completing his 18th year by 9th April 1994. Therefore, Iintend to submit an application for appointment in the Bank for myeldest son Shri Kuppuswamy during April 1994.I request you, Sir, to kindly consider my case sympatheticallyand permit me to prefer an application as above."14. With reference to the aforesaid letter, the Bank byreply dated 7.9.1991, advised her to renew the request after her sonattains majority, but in any case not later than 19th June, 1995. Itwas specifically indicated :-"... In this connection, please note that this letterdoes not confer any right on any member of the family of thedeceased employee to have compassionate appointment in theBank nor does it form any commitment on the part of the Bankfor offering such appointment at a future date. Theapplication, if any, received will be examined in the lightof the provisions of the Bank's Scheme of compassionateappointments in vogue at that point of time."15. Thereafter, soon after the son of the writ petitionerattained majority, the writ petitioner made a fresh application on15.4.1994 requesting that appointment may be given to her son. On28.4.1994, the following reply was given by the Bank :-"With reference to your letter dated 15th April 1994, weadvise you to furnish the particulars as required in theenclosed proforma at an early date to enable us to takenecessary action in the matter."and apparently by further communication dated 10.5.1994, the writpetitioner furnished particulars in the pro-forma for necessaryaction.16. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitionerclaims that such particulars were furnished in the pro-forma as perthe annexure to the Circular dated 21.7.1988, on a careful comparisonof the two pro-formas, we find that the particulars were in fact https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ furnished in a different proforma. However, the details furnishedwere apparently similar, but not exactly the same.17. Be that as it may, by communication dated 20.6.1995,the Bank gave a categorical reply to the writ petitioner to thefollowing effect :-"Consequent to the review of the Bank's Policy towardscompassionate appointment, the facility of compassionateappointment is now restricted to the spouse of the deceasedemployee. Bank is, therefore, unable to offer appointmentto your son Shri Kuppusamy as requested by you. However,the ex-gratia payment which works out to Rs.75,740/-(Rupees seventy five thousand seven hundred and fortyonly)."18. Undaunted by the negative reply of the Bank, the writpetitioner sent a letter dated 20.7.1995, wherein inter alia it wasindicated :-"... In this connection I submit that the Bank has totake into consideration of the rules and the agreement madewith the Union as on the date of death of my husband i.e.20.6.91. According to that time of the agreement made withthe Union and the rules in force on that date provide theappointment facility of Compassionate appointment. Therules available on the crucial date (death of my husband)has to be taken into account which is also a naturaljustification acceptable by a Court of Law."19. The writ petitioner again requested for givingemployment to her son. The above request was again turned down bythe Bank by reply dated 25.8.1995, wherein it was indicated that theson was ineligible earlier and, therefore, the application wasrequired to be considered in accordance with the Scheme subsequentlyadopted by the Bank. Thereafter, the writ petitioner after remainingquiet for about five years, renewed her application seeking foremployment for her son on compassionate ground by a representationdated 3.4.2000, obviously being inspired by the fact that the Bankhad apparently appointed the son of another employee on the basis ofthe direction issued by the court. This request was promptlyrejected by the Bank by letter dated 8.6.2000. The writ petitionermade a further representation dated 15.9.2000 reiterating her earlierrequest and specifically inviting the attention of the Bank regardingappointment of Shri Pothana Prabhu, on the direction of the HighCourt, Madras, in W.P.No.8284 of 1995. This request was again turneddown by the Bank by letter dated 19.9.2000. Thereafter, the writpetitioner filed the writ petition in March, 2001 for quashing thecommunication dated 19.9.2000 and for issuing a direction to the Bankto give employment to her son. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition andissued a direction to the Bank to offer employment to the son of thewrit petitioner. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learnedsingle Judge has placed strong reliance reliance upon an earlierdecision of a single Judge in W.P.No.8284 of 1995 disposed of on28.9.1998. According to the learned single Judge since the facts inthe earlier case were similar to the facts of the case on hand, thesaid decision could be followed. The learned single Judge brushedaside the submission of the bank relating to laches on the groundthat between 20.6.1995, when the Bank had rejected the claim, and19.9.2000, when the Bank again turned down the request, the writpetitioner had also made a representation on 3.2.1997, which had beenreplied on 16.4.1997 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there wasany laches, as according to the learned single Judge it cannot besaid that after 1995 till filing of the writ petition, the petitionerhad slept over the matter.21. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has submittedthat since the main object behind the Scheme for employment oncompassionate ground is to enable the family to tide over theimmediate financial stringency on account of the death of the bread-winner, the entire purpose of such Scheme would be lost if thedirection for appointments on compassionate grounds were issued longafter the death of the concerned employee. In this connection, ithas been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in fact thedeath had taken place in the year 1991, when the son of the deceasedbeing a minor was not at all eligible and even though the presentwrit petitioner was advised that she can make appropriate applicationafter the son attains majority, it was made clear that suchapplication would be considered in accordance with the Scheme invogue at the relevant time. By the time the subsequent formalapplication was taken up for consideration, the Scheme dated28.10.1994 had become effective. Such Scheme specifically envisagedthat the offer of employment can be availed only by the widow of thedeceased and not by any other person. In the alternative it was onlyfinancial grant of lumpsum amount was available. It is furthercontended that at any rate the application was categorically rejectedin June 1995, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2001and was disposed of only in February, 2009 by issuing a direction forgiving employment. In other words, even though the death had takenplace in 1991, a direction for employment was given after 18 years,which is contrary to the basic principle providing employment oncompassionate grounds. Learned Senior Counsel has cited before usseveral decisions of the Supreme Court, which would be noticed in duecourse. It is further submitted that the applications, which hadbeen made for compassionate appointment in respect of the personsdying in harness after 1.1.1992, had been kept pending as a formalScheme was on the anvil and even though, in the present case, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employee had died before January, 1992, the son was ineligible atthat time being minor and subsequently when the application was made,like other applications, which had been made, it had been keptpending in view of the impending Scheme. Under these circumstances,issuing a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds is notonly contrary to the Scheme but also to several decisions of theSupreme Court. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that theunreported decision of the learned single Judge, which has beenfollowed in the present decision, was clearly distinguishableinasmuch as the said writ petition was filed in the year 1995, soonafter the representation for employment on compassionate grounds hadbeen rejected, whereas, in the present case, the writ petitioner hasfiled the writ petition aft er a long lapse of six years.22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writpetitioner / respondent, on the other hand, submitted that theScheme, dated 28.10.1994, would not have been made applicable to theapplication made by the writ petitioner for appointment oncompassionate grounds inasmuch as the first application was made inthe year 1991 and even the second application was made on 15.4.1994,before the Scheme had been formulated and, therefore, suchapplication should have been considered keeping in view theguidelines applicable before the introduction of the Scheme dated28.4.1994. 23. At this stage, before considering the other aspects, wethink it would be appropriate to notice the various Supreme Courtdecisions.24. In (1994) 2 SCC 718 (LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OFINDIA v. ASHRA RAMACHHANDRA AMBEKAR), it was observed :-"10. . . . The High Courts and the AdministrativeTribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympatheticconsideration.. . .17. . . . Thus, apart from the direction as toappointment on compassionate grounds being against statutoryprovisions, such direction does not take note of this fact.Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed theappointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction undermandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should havemerely directed consideration of the claim of the secondrespondent. . . ."25. In (1994) 4 SCC 138 (UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL v. STATE OFHARYANA AND OTHERS), it was observed as follows :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "2. The question relates to the considerations whichshould guide while giving appointment in public services oncompassionate ground. It appears that there has been a gooddeal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments inthe public services should be made strictly on the basis ofopen invitation of applications and merit. No other mode ofappointment nor any other consideration is permissible.Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are atliberty to follow any other procedure or relax thequalifications laid down by the rules for the post. However,to this general rule which is to be followed strictly inevery case, there are some exceptions carved out in theinterests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. Onesuch exception is in favour of the dependants of an employeedying in harness and leaving his family in penury andwithout any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of purehumanitarian consideration taking into consideration thefact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, thefamily would not be able to make both ends meet, a provisionis made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one ofthe dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for suchemployment. The whole object of granting compassionateemployment is thus to enable the family to tide over thesudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of suchfamily a post much less a post for post held by thedeceased. What is further, mere death of an employee inharness does not entitle his family to such source oflivelihood. The Government or the public authority concernedhas to examine the financial condition of the family of thedeceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but forthe provision of employment, the family will not be able tomeet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligiblemember of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV arethe lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories andhence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds,the object being to relieve the family, of the financialdestitution and to help it get over the emergency. Theprovision of employment in such lowest posts by making anexception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it isnot discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to suchdependant of the deceased employee in such posts has arational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz.,relief against destitution. No other posts are expected orrequired to be given by the public authorities for thepurpose. It must be remembered in this connection that asagainst the destitute family of the deceased there aremillions of other families which are equally, if not moredestitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ family of the deceased employee is in consideration of theservices rendered by him and the legitimate expectations,and the change in the status and affairs, of the familyengendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenlyupturned.3. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governmentsand public authorities have been offering compassionateemployment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective ofthe financial condition of the family of the deceased andsometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That islegally impermissible.4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in aposition to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courtswhich have justified and even directed compassionateemployment either as a matter of course or in posts aboveClasses III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that thedecision of this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of Indiahas been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. Thedecision does not justify compassionate employment either asa matter of course or in employment in posts above ClassesIII and IV. . . . ...6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employmentcannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period whichmust be specified in the rules. The consideration for suchemployment is not a vested right which can be exercised atany time in future. The object being to enable the family toget over the financial crisis which it faces at the time ofthe death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionateemployment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapseof time and after the crisis is over."26. In (1995) 6 SCC 476 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v.BHAGWAN SINGH), even though the Administrative Tribunal had given adirection for appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of aminor son, who had made the application after attaining majority, theSupreme Court had set aside such decision of the Tribunal byobserving that compassionate appointment is not meant to be givenlong after the event, namely, the death of the employee27. In (2007) 4 SCC 778 (STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v.SOMVIR SINGH), after referring to the aforesaid decision and thedecision reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350 (UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERSv. M.T. LATHEESH), it was observed:-"10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellantBank is required to consider the request for compassionateappointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and no discretion as such is left with any of theauthorities to make compassionate appointment dehors thescheme. In our considered opinion the claim forcompassionate appointment and the right, if any, istraceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules,etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providingemployment on compassionate grounds. There is no right ofwhatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on anyground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employerby way of scheme or instructions as the case may be."28. In (2003) 7 SCC 704 (STATE OF HARYANA v. ANKUR GUPTA),it was observed :-"6. As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Deviit need not be pointed out that the claim of the personconcerned for appointment on compassionate ground is basedon the premise that he was dependent on the deceasedemployee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on thetouchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.However, such claim is considered as reasonable andpermissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in thefamily of such employee who has served the State and dieswhile in service. That is why it is necessary for theauthorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue suchadministrative orders which can stand the test of Articles14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot beclaimed as a matter of right. Die-in-Harness Scheme cannotbe made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of thenature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In RaniDevi case it was held that the scheme regarding appointmenton compassionate ground if extended to all types of casualor ad hoc employees including those who worked asapprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar it was pointedout that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannotconfer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations tomake appointments on compassionate grounds when theregulations framed in respect thereof do not cover andcontemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh KumarNagpal v. State of Haryana that as a rule, in public serviceappointments should be made strictly on the basis of openinvitation of applications and merit. The appointment oncompassionate ground is not another source of recruitmentbut merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement takinginto consideration the fact of the death of the employeewhile in service leaving his family without any means oflivelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the familyto get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointmentson compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the rules, regulations or administrative instructions takinginto consideration the financial condition of the family ofthe deceased."29. In AIR 2006 SC 2743 : (2006) 5 SCC 766 (STATE OF JAMMU& KASHMIR v. SAJAD AHMED MIR), it was observed:-"17. . . .When the Division Bench decided the matter,more than fifteen years had passed from the date of thedeath of the father of the applicant. The said fact wasindeed a relevant and material fact which went to show thatthe family survived in spite of the death of theemployee. . . ."30. The observation made in Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case wasagain followed in (2008) 3 SCC 462 (A.P.SRTC v. SARVARUNNISA BEGUM). 31. In a very recent unreported decision of a DivisionBench of this Court in W.A.No.1221 of 2008 (DIRECTOR OF SCHOOLEDUCATION, CHENNAI & 2 OTHERS v. FANNY SUSIL KUMARI), disposed of on11.6.2009, almost a similar question had cropped up, wherein it wasobserved as follows :-"2. The father of the respondent was working as aHeadmaster in a school situated in Chengam Taluk inTiruvannamalai District. He died on 01.06.1991. It appearsthat the mother of the respondent applied for a job, but shedid not get it. The respondent herself applied sometime inthe year 2001, which application was kept pending. In themeantime, the respondent got married in November, 2004. Herapplication was rejected on the ground of her marriage.Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed thewrit petition, which came to be allowed. It was pointed outbefore the learned single Judge that the respondent gotmarried in November 2004 and she was no longer supportingthe family, which she ought to be supporting. It was onthat ground that the learned single Judge found that thesubmission was untenable and therefore, directed theDepartment to reconsider the respondent's claim forcompassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the saidorder, the appellants/respondents have come forward withthis appeal.3. Mr.Manoj Seevatasan, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent submits that merely because the respondentgot married that cannot be a disqualification for getting anappointment on compassionate ground. We see some force inthe said submission. However, on the facts of the case,what we find is t hat her father died in the year 1991. Maybe her mother applied earlier. But ultimately therespondent applied for a job in the year 2001 i.e., nearlyten years after the death of her father. She got married in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the year 2004. All these facts go to show that the urgencyand difficulty that was there on account of the death of thefather of the respondent did not remain compelling for theState to provide a job to the family. Compassionateappointment is to tide over the immediate difficulties facedby the family on account of the death of the bread winner ofthe family. In the instant case, as seem from the fact,nearly 10 years after the death of her father, therespondent applied for a job. She got married later.Though the reason canvassed before the learned single Judgemay not be stated to be a very good reason, on the facts ofthis case there was no longer any urgency and justificationto provide for compassionate appointment.4. Compassionate appointment is an exception to therule namely, that public employment has to be offered to allby applying uniform yardstick. It is an exception for thepeople who are in difficulty and therefore, when thatdifficulty subsists such appointment has to be considered.The learned single Judge obviously erred in granting adirection to reconsider the claim of the respondent, which,in our opinion, does not arise in any manner." 32. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions make it clear thata direction regarding making appointment on compassionate grounds canbe issued strictly in accordance with the Scheme applicable and notbecause of any other sympathetic consideration de hors the Schemeapplicable. Moreover, the main object under lying the policy ofmaking appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable the familyto tide over the immediate financial stringency and such objectitself would be defeated if direction regarding compassionateappointment is issued long after the event has occurred. In thepresent case, as already noticed, the direction regarding employmenthas been given after about 18 years. Moreover, in the present case,there has been a positive direction regarding offering employment oncompassionate grounds, though the decision on which the learnedsingle Judge relied upon had merely directed the Bank to consider thequestion of appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of thepolicy which was applicable at the time when the application forappointment on compassionate grounds had been made. It has to bekept in view that in the said case the writ petition itself has beenfiled soon after the rejection and necessary direction forreconsideration had been issued within a reasonable period. 33. Law is well settled that in service jurisprudence, aperson affected should approach the Court within a reasonable timeafter t he cause of action arises and making repeated representationscannot give rise to successive cause of action. In the present case,the application for appointment on compassionate grounds had beenrejected in June, 1995, itself and a subsequent representation was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also rejected within two to three months. The petitioner, instead offiling a writ petition immediately as in the other case, has waitedfor another six years and it is obvious that his subsequentrepresentations were made in 2000 because of the order passed by theHigh Court in W.P.No.8284 of 1995. In these circumstances, in ourconsidered opinion, the writ petition must be held to be hit by theprinciple of laches and acquiescence. 34. Learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitionerhas placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Courtreported in AIR 2008 SC 39 (MOHAN MAHTO v. M/s. CENTRAL COAL FIELDLTD. & OTHERS). The said decision is clearly distinguishable inasmuchas the claim for compassionate appointment was made on the basis ofsettlement between the Management and the Workman, which obviouslyhad the status of a legal binding principle. Under thesecircumstances, when the petition had been rejected only on untenableground, the Supreme Court had upheld the claim of the applicant forappointment on compassionate grounds. 35. If the present application is to be considered in thelight of the Scheme dated 28.10.1994, obviously the son of thepresent writ petitioner cannot have any locus standi or claiminasmuch as under the Scheme now available, only the spouse can beoffered employment on compassionate grounds. If the contention ofthe writ petitioner that the application should have been consideredin the light of the Scheme applicable at the time of death, obviouslythe son of the present writ petitioner did not have any right at thatstage inasmuch as he was merely a minor and he has been advised thathis application after attaining majority could be considered only inaccordance with the Scheme applicable. Even otherwise assuming thatthe application could have been considered between April 1994 andOctober 1994, before the Scheme became applicable, such applicationhaving been rejected in June, 1995, there was no justification forthe writ petitioner to wait for another six years for the purpose offiling the writ petition. This is more so in view of the categoricaldecisions of the Supreme Court in several cases that appointment oncompassionate grounds cannot be offered after long lapse of time.Since all these aspects have not been considered by the learnedsingle Judge, we feel constrained to quash the order passed by thelearned single Judge.36. In all the replies to the various representations, thewrit petitioner had been offered payment of ex-gratia by the Bank,but the writ petitioner had not accepted such amount on the hope thatan employment would be offered to her son. The bank had indicatedthat a sum of Rs.75,740/- would be payable to the writ petitioner.However, since such amount has not been received, it is obvious thatit has remained with the Bank. The above calculation was obviouslymade on the salary structure at the time of death of the employee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Since the matter has remained pending for a long period before theHigh Court and since the order of the learned single Judge is beingset aside, we feel it would be more appropriate to pay thecompensation by taking into consideration the present salarystructure with a view to soften the blow.37. Under these circumstances, we feel interest of justicewould be served by issuing a direction to the Bank to pay a sum ofRs.1,50,000/- as ex-gratia payment. Such amount may be paid within aperiod of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment.38. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the appeal isallowed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrardpkTo1.The Manager,Reserve Bank of India,Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai,Chennai 600 001.2.The Assistant General Manager (P),Reserve Bank of India,Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai,Chennai 600 001.1 cc To Mr.Ashok Menon, Advocate, SR.33471.1 cc To Mr.T.Poornam, Advocate, SR.33609.WA.396/2009 PKB(CO)RVL 03.08.2009