Suneeta Pal v. Canara Bank through its Chairman and others) before this Court, wherein by order

" The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent no. 3 within a period of three weeks. If such representation is made, the respondent no. 3 shall hear all parties concerned and pass 2 appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within three months thereafter."

4. In pursuance of the directions of this Court the impugned order has been passed.

5. The impugned order dated 21.06.2023 records the income of the family of the deceased from all sources as under:- Particulars SPF Gratuity Leave Encashment Sub Total (A) Amount 8,72,490.76 10,26,540.00 7,29,134.04 26,28,164.80 Investments (B) 3,83,823.50 Total Assets © (A+B) 30,11,988.30 13,97,672.34 Total Liabilities (D) 16,14,315.96 Net Assets (C-D)

6. After discussing the aforesaid income and properties of the family of the deceased (including their house) the order makes following findings as regards to the financial status of the family: "The net amount available to the dependent family from terminal benefits and investments is Rs.16.14 lacs. After the demise of the Ex-Employee, his family was sanctioned monthly family pension of Rs.36,608/-. Apart from this, the Petitioner family was also paid a GTLI amount of Rs.17.29 lacs and the dependents are residing in their own house. In compliance to the order dated 20.12.2022 of the Court, your application was placed for before the Competent Authority for consideration wherein it has been observed as follows:- 2 of 8 3 The objective of granting Compassionate Appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. However, the monthly income that shall be available to the dependents of the deceased employee from all sources of income is Rs. 45,353/- (including Family Pension and interest income, if terminal benefits are invested in fixed deposits). The financial condition of the family is satisfactory and they are not in penury. On an objective assessment of the above facts of the case in light of the existing scheme for compassionate appointment, it is observed that the family is not in penury without any means of livelihood to extend relief to the family by way of compassionate appointment. In view of the above, your request for employment on Compassionate grounds is not considered favourably by the competent Authority." (emphasis added)

7. The relevant rules which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case are extracted here under:- "ELIGIBILITY

6.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and

6.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules."

8. The sole rationale for grant of compassionate appointments is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the earning member. Hence a mandatory precondition for appointment on compassionate grounds is financial destitution faced by the family as a result of the death of employee. Compassionate 3 of 8 4 appointments are a welfare measure, however they are not intended to create a windfall for the deceased. The employer is only required to assess the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and then determine whether it is sufficient to keep the kitchen fire burning.

9. The impugned order discloses that the respondent authorities while examining the financial status of the dependents of the deceased after his death, took into consideration all relevant factors including the income of the family from all sources and also the fact that they own a house. After the aforesaid appraisal the impugned order finds that current income of the family of the deceased was 80% of the last salary drawn by the deceased in his life time. On this footing it is concluded that the financial condition of the family is sound. From the records and the reasons in the impugned order it is evident that the family did not face financial destitution, and hence the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has not disputed the income of the family so determined in the impugned order. There is no perversity in the aforesaid findings.

10. The petitioner submits that the house was taken on loan by the bank in which the petitioner's family is residing. The loan liability still exists. This fact does not in any manner discredit the conclusion drawn by the authority. Admittedly the imperative prerequisite for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds 4 of 8 5 which is financial penury caused by the death of the employee does not exist in this case.

11. The discussion has the benefit of good authorities in point. The Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs Shashi Kumar1 while examining the parameters for grant of compassionate ground appointment including the existing means of subsistence of the family held as under: "18. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependant member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State.

19. The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18 January 1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance to dependants of government servants who have died

1. (2019) 3 SCC 653 5 of 8 6 while in service, "leaving their families in indigent circumstances". The Policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence. The policy recognizes in Paragraph 10 that the benefits which are received by a family on account of welfare measures are required to be considered. Among them, the policy stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to be taken into account in assessing the financial circumstances of the family. The Policy does not preclude the dependants of a deceased employee from being considered for compassionate appointment merely because they are in receipt of family pension. What the Policy mandates is that the receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account. Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy sets out the measures provided by the State which have a bearing on the financial need of the family.

20. In view of the clear terms of the Policy, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the Government to disregard its Policy. Such direction could not have been issued by the High Court. The High Court has drawn sustenance in issuing mandamus in the above terms on a decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma (supra). That was a case of compassionate appointment where in the course of the proceedings before the High Court, a learned Single Judge had directed the Life Insurance Corporation, which was the employer of the deceased employee, to make an enquiry and submit a report on whether the members of the family engaged in gainful employment were also supporting the family of the deceased employee. This Court, in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court rejecting the petition for compassionate appointment, observed that the officer who had enquired into the matter in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge completely omitted to furnish any report on the points which were required by the High Court to be investigated. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that the family was in receipt of family pension and other amounts 6 of 8 7 towards terminal benefits. Reversing the view of the High Court, a two- Judge Bench of this Court held thus: "6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules..."

12. More recently the Supreme Court examined the impact of financial status of the family of the deceased on the claim for compassionate ground appointments and other relevant factors germane to grant of compassionate appointments in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 and propounded the law as under: “11. (q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh]. (s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary]. (t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in- harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja]. 7 of 8 8 (u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)]. (v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL] (w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar]. (x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar]. (y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur].”

14. The judgments rendered in Shashi Kumar (supra) and Ajithkumar G.K. (supra) squarely apply to the facts of this case and shall govern its fate.

15. In the wake of preceding discussion this Court finds that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds. No interference is called for in the impugned order. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Pravin 8 of 8 PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

" The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent no. 3 within a period of three weeks. If such representation is made, the respondent no. 3 shall hear all parties concerned and pass 2 appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within three months thereafter."

4. In pursuance of the directions of this Court the impugned order has been passed.

5. The impugned order dated 21.06.2023 records the income of the family of the deceased from all sources as under:- Particulars SPF Gratuity Leave Encashment Sub Total (A) Amount 8,72,490.76 10,26,540.00 7,29,134.04 26,28,164.80 Investments (B) 3,83,823.50 Total Assets © (A+B) 30,11,988.30 13,97,672.34 Total Liabilities (D) 16,14,315.96 Net Assets (C-D)

6. After discussing the aforesaid income and properties of the family of the deceased (including their house) the order makes following findings as regards to the financial status of the family: "The net amount available to the dependent family from terminal benefits and investments is Rs.16.14 lacs. After the demise of the Ex-Employee, his family was sanctioned monthly family pension of Rs.36,608/-. Apart from this, the Petitioner family was also paid a GTLI amount of Rs.17.29 lacs and the dependents are residing in their own house. In compliance to the order dated 20.12.2022 of the Court, your application was placed for before the Competent Authority for consideration wherein it has been observed as follows:- 2 of 8 3 The objective of granting Compassionate Appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. However, the monthly income that shall be available to the dependents of the deceased employee from all sources of income is Rs. 45,353/- (including Family Pension and interest income, if terminal benefits are invested in fixed deposits). The financial condition of the family is satisfactory and they are not in penury. On an objective assessment of the above facts of the case in light of the existing scheme for compassionate appointment, it is observed that the family is not in penury without any means of livelihood to extend relief to the family by way of compassionate appointment. In view of the above, your request for employment on Compassionate grounds is not considered favourably by the competent Authority." (emphasis added)

7. The relevant rules which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case are extracted here under:- "ELIGIBILITY

6.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and

6.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules."

8. The sole rationale for grant of compassionate appointments is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the earning member. Hence a mandatory precondition for appointment on compassionate grounds is financial destitution faced by the family as a result of the death of employee. Compassionate 3 of 8 4 appointments are a welfare measure, however they are not intended to create a windfall for the deceased. The employer is only required to assess the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and then determine whether it is sufficient to keep the kitchen fire burning.

9. The impugned order discloses that the respondent authorities while examining the financial status of the dependents of the deceased after his death, took into consideration all relevant factors including the income of the family from all sources and also the fact that they own a house. After the aforesaid appraisal the impugned order finds that current income of the family of the deceased was 80% of the last salary drawn by the deceased in his life time. On this footing it is concluded that the financial condition of the family is sound. From the records and the reasons in the impugned order it is evident that the family did not face financial destitution, and hence the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has not disputed the income of the family so determined in the impugned order. There is no perversity in the aforesaid findings.

10. The petitioner submits that the house was taken on loan by the bank in which the petitioner's family is residing. The loan liability still exists. This fact does not in any manner discredit the conclusion drawn by the authority. Admittedly the imperative prerequisite for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds 4 of 8 5 which is financial penury caused by the death of the employee does not exist in this case.

11. The discussion has the benefit of good authorities in point. The Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs Shashi Kumar1 while examining the parameters for grant of compassionate ground appointment including the existing means of subsistence of the family held as under: "18. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependant member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State.

19. The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18 January 1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance to dependants of government servants who have died

1. (2019) 3 SCC 653 5 of 8 6 while in service, "leaving their families in indigent circumstances". The Policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence. The policy recognizes in Paragraph 10 that the benefits which are received by a family on account of welfare measures are required to be considered. Among them, the policy stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to be taken into account in assessing the financial circumstances of the family. The Policy does not preclude the dependants of a deceased employee from being considered for compassionate appointment merely because they are in receipt of family pension. What the Policy mandates is that the receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account. Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy sets out the measures provided by the State which have a bearing on the financial need of the family.

20. In view of the clear terms of the Policy, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the Government to disregard its Policy. Such direction could not have been issued by the High Court. The High Court has drawn sustenance in issuing mandamus in the above terms on a decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma (supra). That was a case of compassionate appointment where in the course of the proceedings before the High Court, a learned Single Judge had directed the Life Insurance Corporation, which was the employer of the deceased employee, to make an enquiry and submit a report on whether the members of the family engaged in gainful employment were also supporting the family of the deceased employee. This Court, in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court rejecting the petition for compassionate appointment, observed that the officer who had enquired into the matter in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge completely omitted to furnish any report on the points which were required by the High Court to be investigated. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that the family was in receipt of family pension and other amounts 6 of 8 7 towards terminal benefits. Reversing the view of the High Court, a two- Judge Bench of this Court held thus: "6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules..."

12. More recently the Supreme Court examined the impact of financial status of the family of the deceased on the claim for compassionate ground appointments and other relevant factors germane to grant of compassionate appointments in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 and propounded the law as under: “11. (q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh]. (s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary]. (t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in- harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja]. 7 of 8 8 (u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)]. (v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL] (w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar]. (x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar]. (y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur].”

14. The judgments rendered in Shashi Kumar (supra) and Ajithkumar G.K. (supra) squarely apply to the facts of this case and shall govern its fate.

15. In the wake of preceding discussion this Court finds that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds. No interference is called for in the impugned order. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Pravin 8 of 8 PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad