As held by t his court in St at e Bank of I ndia v. Raj Kum ar report ed in

Mr. Arvind Vashist ha, Senior Advocat e assist ed by Ms. Monika Pant and Ms. Deveshi, Advocat es for t he appellant s Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocat e for respondent no.1 No represent at ion for respondent no.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Th e Co u r t m a d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : JUDGMENT: ( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju st i c e Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i )

1. This int ra- court appeal is filed by Cent ral Bank of I ndia challenging j udgm ent dat ed 07.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No.1346 of

2008. By t he said j udgm ent , rej ect ion of claim of writ pet it ioner ( respondent no.1 herein) for com passionat e appoint m ent was set aside and t he aut horit ies were direct ed t o decide his case for appoint m ent on com passionat e basis, wit hout insist ing on an incom e ceiling. 1

2. The claim of respondent no.1 was rej ect ed on t he ground t hat dependent s of t he deceased em ployee had received ₹ 3,94,000/- as t erm inal benefit s, besides family pension amounting to ₹ 3,884/- per m ont h.

3. Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel respondent no.1 subm it s t hat out of t he t erm inal benefit s paid to the family, a sum of ₹ 47,900/ - was deduct ed t owards house loan, which deceased em ployee had t aken during his lifet im e.

4. Mr. Arvind Vashist ha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for t he appellant s subm it s t hat com passionat e appoint m ent cannot be claim ed as a m at t er of right and it has t o be grant ed by t he em ployer as per t he policy applicable; as per policy applicable in Cent ral Bank of I ndia, t he financial resources which fam ily of an em ployee would receive aft er his deat h, has t o be t aken int o account , which includes t he am ount which t he fam ily would get as fam ily pension and ot her t erm inal dues. He subm it s t hat claim of respondent no.1 for com passionat e appoint m ent was rej ect ed on t he ground t hat t he fam ily has sufficient financial resources available aft er deat h of t he em ployee and learned Single Judge erred in direct ing t he aut horit ies t o consider his case for appoint m ent 2 wit hout insist ing on incom e ceiling.

5. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon a j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court t he case of Ce n t r a l Ba n k o f I n d i a v s. N i t i n r e p o r t e d i n ( 2 0 2 2 ) SCC On l i n e SC 1 8 7 3 . Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: - “ 2 0 . I t is well set t led t hat com passionat e appoint m ent is an except ion t o t he rule of equalit y, which enables t he dependent fam ily m em bers of a m edically incapacit at ed em ployee who has no opt ion, but t o ret ire, or a deceased em ployee, t o t ide over t he im m ediat e crisis caused by t he incapacit at ion or deat h of t he breadwinner. Com passionat e Appoint m ent excludes equally or m ore m erit orious candidat es, m uch in need of a j ob, from t he zone of considerat ion. Considerat ion for com passionat e appoint m ent m ust , t herefore, be st rict ly in accordance wit h t he prevalent for com passionat e appoint m ent applicable t o t he deceased/ prem at urely ret ired em ployee. 2 1 . I n t his case, t here is a financial crit eria of eligibilit y for com passionat e appoint m ent t he Com passionat e Appoint m ent Schem e. Rules which provide for a financial crit eria for appoint m ent on Com passionat e ground are valid and lawful rules which have t o be const rued st rict ly, as ot herwise t he quot a reserved for com passionat e appoint m ent would be filled up excluding ot hers who m ight be in great er and/ or far m ore acut e financial dist ress. 2 2 . As held by t his court in St at e Bank of I ndia vs. Raj Kum ar report ed in ( 2010) 11 SCC 661 cit ed by Mr. Debal Kum ar Banerj i, lear ned senior counsel appearing on behalf of t he appellant - Bank, t he claim for com passionat e appoint m ent is t raceable only t o t he Schem e fram ed by t he em ployer for 3 such em ploym ent , and t here is no right what soever out side such schem e. There could be no aut om at ic appoint m ent m erely on applicat ion. The respondent - writ pet it ioner did not have any special claim or special right t o em ploym ent as dependent fam ily m em ber of t he ret ired em ployee.”

6. We find subst ance in t he subm issions m ade by learned Senior Counsel. The claim for com passionat e appoint m ent has t o be considered as per t he prevalent policy. Since in t he policy of Cent ral Bank of I ndia, t here is an incom e ceiling prescribed, t herefore, t he direct ion t o ignore t he incom e ceiling, does not appear t o be proper. The claim for com passionat e appoint m ent has t o be considered as per t he policy and t here cannot be any direct ion t o consider it dehors t he policy.

7. I n such view of t he m at t er, while upholding t he direct ion t o t ake decision on respondent ’s claim , we int erfere wit h t hat part whereby aut horit ies were direct ed t o consider it by ignoring incom e ceiling. The appeal is, t herefore, disposed of wit h direct ion t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y in Cent ral Bank of I ndia t o reconsider case of respondent no.1, as per law. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 30.07.2025 30.07.2025 Raj ni RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48 448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f 17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222 B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F53 0616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN 4