Counsel for v. Advocate for the Punjab National

of at the admission stage on 31.01.2023, after hearing learned Counsel for the Bank and acting on his statement that the petitioner's application is under active consideration of the Bank and would be considered and decided within fifteen days. This Court directed the Bank to decide the petitioner's -3- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 application for compassionate appointment within next fifteen days, strictly in accordance with law. The Bank was also directed to intimate the petitioner of the decision within 24 hours.

5. The case of the petitioner is that acting on the orders passed by this Court on 31.01.2023, the Bank rejected his claim for compassionate appointment, without considering the financial condition of the petitioner, that is to say, the dependants of the deceased's family. The remark in the order of rejection is that the petitioner's monthly income from all sources is more than 60% of the notional gross salary of the deceased employee (net of notional tax), as per relevant policy guidelines. The petitioner pleads that he has lost his father and mother, involving considerable expenditure incurred in the treatment. His brother, Arjun Singh, lives separately along with his own family. The petitioner, who was dependent on his father, has plunged into a sudden economic crisis.

6. It is also averred that the petitioner's mother, the late Kamlesh, was drawing a family pension to the tune of 13,288 per mensem, which she ŵ⇃ received till December, 2021. She died on 11.01.2022, whereafter, family pension, too, has gone away. The petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh receives a monthly salary of 15,274, who lives separately with his family comprising ŵ⇃ his wife and two children. He stays separately since the year 2017. The deceased's family are, therefore, left without a source of income. They were totally dependent upon him.

7. The petitioner has come up with a case that after his father's demise, the deceased's family received terminal dues from the Bank to the tune of ŵ⇃

987358. It is urged that the entire sum of terminal dues as well as other savings have been spent in his father's and mother's treatment, and the family are left with no resources. The petitioner's case is that the respondent- Bank have calculated the total income of the deceased's family at a sum of ŵ⇃

33745.73, worked out in the manner that a sum of 5283 has been ŵ⇃ regarded as income from monthly interest from terminal dues, 13288 per ŵ⇃ month as the deceased’s wife’s family pension and 15274 per month as the ŵ⇃ -4- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 deceased's other son's (Arjun Singh) salary. The petitioner has averred that there is no Fixed Deposit in any of the banks, yielding the hefty interest of ŵ⇃ 5183 per mensem. Since Kamlesh passed away on 11.01.2022, the family pension has also ceased. The petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh, is living separately, as already asserted, since the year 2017, with a family of his own, comprising his wife and children to support. His income is, therefore, not one that can be reckoned towards the income of the deceased's family. The petitioner says that he has to fend for himself and can hardly make ends meet, working as a casual labourer.

8. A short counter affidavit was filed by Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 25.10.2024. A short rejoinder was filed on 27.10.2024. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 dated 07.11.2024, and a further short counter affidavit, on 19.11.2024. A second counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 16.12.2024.

9. With so much of pleadings exchanged, this petition was admitted to hearing on 17.12.2024, which proceeded on that day, but remained inconclusive. The roster changed, on account of which, this matter was assigned to me, under the orders of His Lordship the Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 15.01.2025. The matter was finally heard and judgment reserved.

10. Heard Mr. Amit Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank.

11. In paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit dated 07.11.2024, calculation of the petitioner's eligibility under the compassionate appointment scheme has been set forth. The relevant scheme for compassionate appointment is carried in HRMD Circular No. 495 dated

26.03.2020, as modified by the HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021. The calculation for determining the petitioner's eligibility, as pleaded in the counter affidavit, is as follows : -5- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 That in view of the laid down procedure the application of Sh. 8. Sanjay Kumar was processed. The details which was considered by the committee of officers are as under:  Sr No. 1 2 3 4 Particulars of the family of the deceased employee Name Relations Age Qualifi cation Marital Status Whether employed Details of income Kamlesh Wife 49 Illiter Widow No Family Pension Rs. 13288.02 Sanjay Kumar Arjun Singh Son Son 23 30 10+2 Single No Nil 5th Married Yes, PTS in PNB (Emp Id 5151619), Rs. 15274.08 Pooja Daughter 33 8th Married No Nil  Financial Position of the family of the Deceased a) Immovable property: One house self occupied b) Terminal Dues received from the bank: Dues Paid Amount (in Rs.) O/s Loans with Interest Amount (in Rs.) Provident Fund

450665.67 Housing Loan Gratuity

741010.74 Clean OD Leave Encashment

142137.2 Personal Loan Financial Aid TOTAL (A) 50000 Festival Loan

1383813.61 TOTAL (B) Nil

105419.42 266036 25000

396455.42 NET TERMINAL DUES RECEIVED FROM BANK (A-B)= Rs. 987358.19 c) Family Pension : Rs. 13288.02 d) At the time of his death, the monthly gross salary received by the employee was Rs. 41805.06  Calculation of Eligibility of the Applicant under the Relevant Scheme : The relevant details for determining eligibility of the dependent family members for employment as per the above provisions are given as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Amount of Terminal Dues Total Amount of Bank Loans Net Amount of Terminal Dues (1-2) Total amount of other investments Loans against other investments, if any Net amount of other Investments Monthly interest on Net Terminal dues (as at S.no.3) @6.30% (Maximum FD Interest of Bank applicable for staff)

1383813.61

396455.42

987358.19 Nil Nil Nil

5183.63 -6- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Monthly income from other investments (as at S.no.6)@6.30% Amount of monthly Family Pension Any other income (Salary of Shri Arjun Singh, Emp ID 5151619) Total Monthly income (7 to 10) Notional Gross Monthly Salary of Deceased (Feb 2021) Amount of notional Income Tax deducted Salary (Net of notional tax) Eligible Amount (60% of 14) Nil

13288.02

15274.08

33745.73

41805.06

1097.75

40707.31

24424.38 Whether Appointment? eligible compassionate NO

12. The case for denial of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is pleaded in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit, which must be quoted for every word of it. It reads :

9. That the total last drawn salary (net of taxes) was Rs. 40,707.31 and the eligible amount being 60% comes to Rs. 24,424.38. The total monthly income of the family from all sources comes to Rs. 33,745.73 which is more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary net of taxes (Rs. 24,424.38) of the deceased employee. Hence, the Committee of Officers found that Shri Sanjay Kumar son of Late Shri Suraj Pal Singh was not eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of above provisions of the Scheme.

13. Learned Counsel for parties have furthered their submissions more or less in tune with the parties’ pleadings.

14. The question is if under the scheme for compassionate appointment, current in the bank at the time of the petitioner's father's demise, is he eligible for compassionate appointment?

15. We have carefully heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the Committee's reasoning for discarding the petitioner's claim. The reckoning of the petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh's income along with the deceased's family's income is an approach that is absolutely perverse. Arjun Singh is an independent man with a wife and two children to support. He lives separately since the year 2017, when the deceased was still around. Even if he stayed in the same house, it would make no difference at all. He has his own employment and a family to support. In the same house, there can be two homes. Therefore, tagging Arjun Singh's monthly income as part of the -7- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 deceased's family's monthly income is the result of a perverse reasoning. Arjun Singh's income has to be excluded from the deceased's family income, which would reduce the dependant family's income, as Mr. Bhatnagar admits, to a figure of 18471.65. ŵ⇃

16. But, this is not the end of the matter. The total sum of terminal dues received on account of the deceased's demise is a figure of 987358, from ŵ⇃ which, a monthly income of ŵ⇃

5183.63, on the basis of interest of 6.30% (maximum Fixed Deposit interest of bank applicable for staff) has been inferred. This item of the deceased's monthly income is sans material. It is not that the terminal dues received by the surviving family of the deceased have been wasted or misspent. The petitioner claims that the sum of money received in terminal dues has been spent in the treatment of the deceased and the petitioner's mother, besides drawing on the corpus of other investments that the family had.

17. It is not reasonable to think that any sum of money would have been spent out of the deceased's terminal dues received from the Bank on his treatment as such, because the terminal dues would have, in any case, been received after the deceased passed away. But, a perusal of the deceased's wife's statement of account from 03.10.2021 to 02.11.2021 shows that substantial withdrawals shown there could be the money spent on the deceased's wife's treatment, as she passed away soon after the deceased employee’s demise. What was spent in medical treatment of the deceased's wife is a matter that requires to be closely scrutinised, before drawing a conclusion if the entire sum of money paid in terminal benefits was available as investment with the deceased's family, yielding a monthly income. The proof of expenditure ought have been annexed by the petitioner, and, if not that, the petitioner should have been asked to produce the relevant vouchers etc. In the absence of a clear determination that the terminal dues were not spent on the deceased's wife's medical treatment, a blanket inference, that this sum of money was available to the deceased's family, and now the petitioner has a source of monthly income by interest, is patently flawed. -8- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024

18. The more important aspect in this calculation of denial for the petitioner is consideration of the family pension that the deceased's wife received for a short while. The deceased passed away on 05.03.2021, while his wife expired on 11.01.2022. She passed away, therefore, within the space of ten months after her husband's demise. The deceased's family, therefore, were in receipt of family pension for a very small period of time. This period of time cannot be regarded as one stabilising the family and bringing them out of the financial crisis, that they plunged into, upon the deceased employee’s sudden demise. If the widow would have lived on for a relatively longer period of time, it could be said that the family pension would account towards the deceased's dependants' family income. The extremely short- lived feature of the family pension in this case would not serve to reckon the deceased's dependents’ total income.

19. We were persuaded by Mr. Bhatnagar to accept his submission that family income has to be reckoned precisely on the date of the deceased's demise. Notwithstanding the fact that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right, but one created by statutory rules or employer's policy, carried in administrative circulars, as in this case, a policy, once there, has to be reasonably construed. It cannot be applied in an arbitrary manner. The purpose is to bail out the dependants of the deceased from financial crisis. A widow, surviving a few months after the employee’s death and receiving pension for a short period of time, cannot be regarded as a factor that would stabilise the dependent family members and enable them to tide over the financial crisis.

20. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we are of clear opinion that not only the deceased's other son's income, who is an independent man, has to be excluded from the calculation of the deceased's dependant's family income, but also the pension that the deceased employee’s widow received for a few months before she passed away, leaving behind the petitioner with no means. -9- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024

21. The reliance placed by Mr. Bhatnagar upon the authority of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh2, we are afraid, would not be of much assistance to the respondents. The reason is that the respondents have evaluated the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in manifest error, committing a blunder of numerical nature. They have added to the income of the deceased employee’s family, represented by the petitioner, sums of money that were not at all relevant to reckon, as already remarked.

22. Learned Counsel for the respondents has next placed reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court in General Manager, State Bank of India and others v. Anju Jain3. He has invited our attention to the following remarks in Anju Jain (supra) :

31. We are of the view that both the courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi- government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, the State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependants of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment.

23. It is true that it is always open to the employer to devise a formula to determine a threshold of eligibility, based on financial circumstances of the deceased’s family, in order to enable them to a consideration for compassionate appointment. There is nothing inherently unfair or discriminatory about it. But, the formula, once devised, as already said, cannot be applied in an arbitrary fashion in order to reject a claim for compassionate appointment. Considerations irrelevant under the employer’s 2 3 (200) 4 SCC 778 (2008) 8 SCC 475 -10- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 scheme or a perverse application of principles embodied in the scheme is not to be countenanced. It is true that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality in matters of public employment, but, compassionate appointment is a class that is constitutionally valid, if the employer chooses to provide for it, in terms of their policy. Once that policy is forged into statutory rules or circulars, there has to be an even-handed, fair and just application to all such claims, that are put forth, upon the demise of a deceased employee by his dependants, as defined under the scheme. It is not the respondents’ case that the petitioner is not a member of the deceased’s family, as defined under the scheme. They have discarded the claim on the basis of working out an income for the deceased’s family, that is absolutely not there.

24. There is not much cavil about the principle or the fact that a married son, living apart from the deceased’s family, with his wife and children, cannot have his income reckoned towards the deceased’s family’s income. The more subtle issue, that is involved here, is about the pension that was paid to the widow until she was alive for a short while - less than a year after the deceased’s demise. If the widow had lived for a reasonably long period of time, long enough for the petitioner, definitely a dependant of the deceased’s, to settle himself in life and get over the sudden crisis brought about by the deceased employee’s passing away from this mortal world, different conditions would have applied. The test, we think, that would be just and fair to apply, well-grounded in reasonableness, as understood under the Constitution, would be if the financial crises, that the employee’s sudden demise created, has blown over. Indeed, not in this case. The deceased passed away on 05.03.2021 and his widow died on 11.01.2022. The short spell of time that the family pension enured to the benefit of the deceased employee’s family, was not long enough to provide the petitioner with a reasonable degree of opportunity to find for himself suitable employment. The time period, we think, that would be reasonable, cannot be placed in a straight-jacket formula, but still, it should be long enough to enable a surviving and young dependant of the deceased employee to stake claim for -11- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 public employment or find other means of livelihood. Decidedly, in our opinion, a time period of less than a year is not that long, where the crisis brought on by the employee’s demise can be said to be a matter of history.

25. The respondents definitely faltered in not accounting for the money spent out of terminal dues on the deceased’s widow’s aliment, while alive. It had to be taken note of and counted out of the funds available for investment. If the medical expenditure was reimbursable and was actually reimbursed, it would be a different matter, but then, that finding has to be recorded. The evaluation of the petitioner’s claim, where a recurring monthly income has been read to the credit of the deceased employee’s family, has to be understood and revaluated in the aforesaid perspective. Likewise, revaluation of the petitioner’s claim must be one that places out of consideration the petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh’s salary of 15274 per ŵ⇃ mensem. Also, the family pension, which the wife received, while alive, must be discounted.

26. The respondents are, therefore, obliged to reconsider the petitioner’s claim with a different set of figures in terms of their policy. Else, the policy would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

27. The compassionate appointment policy, though cannot be modified by the Court about the parameters of entitlement for a candidate to establish his claim, but, it is not that the Court would fold its hands and permit an absolutely arbitrary, unfair and perverse application of the principles to evaluate a compassionate appointment scheme prescribed by the respondents’ policy, rule or circular itself. We think, in this case, there has been an arbitrary evaluation of the petitioner's claim, taking into consideration credits to the family income, that are absolutely not there.

28. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr is hereby quashed. Likewise, the report of the Committee of Officers dated 16.07.2024 and the decision of the Committee of Officers dated 29.08.2024 are also quashed. A mandamus is -12- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 issued to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr and the Committee of Officers of the Bank, designated under the HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as modified by HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021, to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, bearing in mind the remarks carried in this judgment. Thereafter, orders shall be made on the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr.

29. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr. September 09, 2025 I. Batabyal (J.J. MUNIR) JUDGE ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

of at the admission stage on 31.01.2023, after hearing learned Counsel for the Bank and acting on his statement that the petitioner's application is under active consideration of the Bank and would be considered and decided within fifteen days. This Court directed the Bank to decide the petitioner's -3- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 application for compassionate appointment within next fifteen days, strictly in accordance with law. The Bank was also directed to intimate the petitioner of the decision within 24 hours.

5. The case of the petitioner is that acting on the orders passed by this Court on 31.01.2023, the Bank rejected his claim for compassionate appointment, without considering the financial condition of the petitioner, that is to say, the dependants of the deceased's family. The remark in the order of rejection is that the petitioner's monthly income from all sources is more than 60% of the notional gross salary of the deceased employee (net of notional tax), as per relevant policy guidelines. The petitioner pleads that he has lost his father and mother, involving considerable expenditure incurred in the treatment. His brother, Arjun Singh, lives separately along with his own family. The petitioner, who was dependent on his father, has plunged into a sudden economic crisis.

6. It is also averred that the petitioner's mother, the late Kamlesh, was drawing a family pension to the tune of 13,288 per mensem, which she ŵ⇃ received till December, 2021. She died on 11.01.2022, whereafter, family pension, too, has gone away. The petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh receives a monthly salary of 15,274, who lives separately with his family comprising ŵ⇃ his wife and two children. He stays separately since the year 2017. The deceased's family are, therefore, left without a source of income. They were totally dependent upon him.

7. The petitioner has come up with a case that after his father's demise, the deceased's family received terminal dues from the Bank to the tune of ŵ⇃

987358. It is urged that the entire sum of terminal dues as well as other savings have been spent in his father's and mother's treatment, and the family are left with no resources. The petitioner's case is that the respondent- Bank have calculated the total income of the deceased's family at a sum of ŵ⇃

33745.73, worked out in the manner that a sum of 5283 has been ŵ⇃ regarded as income from monthly interest from terminal dues, 13288 per ŵ⇃ month as the deceased’s wife’s family pension and 15274 per month as the ŵ⇃ -4- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 deceased's other son's (Arjun Singh) salary. The petitioner has averred that there is no Fixed Deposit in any of the banks, yielding the hefty interest of ŵ⇃ 5183 per mensem. Since Kamlesh passed away on 11.01.2022, the family pension has also ceased. The petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh, is living separately, as already asserted, since the year 2017, with a family of his own, comprising his wife and children to support. His income is, therefore, not one that can be reckoned towards the income of the deceased's family. The petitioner says that he has to fend for himself and can hardly make ends meet, working as a casual labourer.

8. A short counter affidavit was filed by Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 25.10.2024. A short rejoinder was filed on 27.10.2024. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 dated 07.11.2024, and a further short counter affidavit, on 19.11.2024. A second counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 16.12.2024.

9. With so much of pleadings exchanged, this petition was admitted to hearing on 17.12.2024, which proceeded on that day, but remained inconclusive. The roster changed, on account of which, this matter was assigned to me, under the orders of His Lordship the Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 15.01.2025. The matter was finally heard and judgment reserved.

10. Heard Mr. Amit Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank.

11. In paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit dated 07.11.2024, calculation of the petitioner's eligibility under the compassionate appointment scheme has been set forth. The relevant scheme for compassionate appointment is carried in HRMD Circular No. 495 dated

26.03.2020, as modified by the HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021. The calculation for determining the petitioner's eligibility, as pleaded in the counter affidavit, is as follows : -5- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 That in view of the laid down procedure the application of Sh. 8. Sanjay Kumar was processed. The details which was considered by the committee of officers are as under:  Sr No. 1 2 3 4 Particulars of the family of the deceased employee Name Relations Age Qualifi cation Marital Status Whether employed Details of income Kamlesh Wife 49 Illiter Widow No Family Pension Rs. 13288.02 Sanjay Kumar Arjun Singh Son Son 23 30 10+2 Single No Nil 5th Married Yes, PTS in PNB (Emp Id 5151619), Rs. 15274.08 Pooja Daughter 33 8th Married No Nil  Financial Position of the family of the Deceased a) Immovable property: One house self occupied b) Terminal Dues received from the bank: Dues Paid Amount (in Rs.) O/s Loans with Interest Amount (in Rs.) Provident Fund

450665.67 Housing Loan Gratuity

741010.74 Clean OD Leave Encashment

142137.2 Personal Loan Financial Aid TOTAL (A) 50000 Festival Loan

1383813.61 TOTAL (B) Nil

105419.42 266036 25000

396455.42 NET TERMINAL DUES RECEIVED FROM BANK (A-B)= Rs. 987358.19 c) Family Pension : Rs. 13288.02 d) At the time of his death, the monthly gross salary received by the employee was Rs. 41805.06  Calculation of Eligibility of the Applicant under the Relevant Scheme : The relevant details for determining eligibility of the dependent family members for employment as per the above provisions are given as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Amount of Terminal Dues Total Amount of Bank Loans Net Amount of Terminal Dues (1-2) Total amount of other investments Loans against other investments, if any Net amount of other Investments Monthly interest on Net Terminal dues (as at S.no.3) @6.30% (Maximum FD Interest of Bank applicable for staff)

1383813.61

396455.42

987358.19 Nil Nil Nil

5183.63 -6- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Monthly income from other investments (as at S.no.6)@6.30% Amount of monthly Family Pension Any other income (Salary of Shri Arjun Singh, Emp ID 5151619) Total Monthly income (7 to 10) Notional Gross Monthly Salary of Deceased (Feb 2021) Amount of notional Income Tax deducted Salary (Net of notional tax) Eligible Amount (60% of 14) Nil

13288.02

15274.08

33745.73

41805.06

1097.75

40707.31

24424.38 Whether Appointment? eligible compassionate NO

12. The case for denial of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is pleaded in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit, which must be quoted for every word of it. It reads :

9. That the total last drawn salary (net of taxes) was Rs. 40,707.31 and the eligible amount being 60% comes to Rs. 24,424.38. The total monthly income of the family from all sources comes to Rs. 33,745.73 which is more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary net of taxes (Rs. 24,424.38) of the deceased employee. Hence, the Committee of Officers found that Shri Sanjay Kumar son of Late Shri Suraj Pal Singh was not eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of above provisions of the Scheme.

13. Learned Counsel for parties have furthered their submissions more or less in tune with the parties’ pleadings.

14. The question is if under the scheme for compassionate appointment, current in the bank at the time of the petitioner's father's demise, is he eligible for compassionate appointment?

15. We have carefully heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the Committee's reasoning for discarding the petitioner's claim. The reckoning of the petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh's income along with the deceased's family's income is an approach that is absolutely perverse. Arjun Singh is an independent man with a wife and two children to support. He lives separately since the year 2017, when the deceased was still around. Even if he stayed in the same house, it would make no difference at all. He has his own employment and a family to support. In the same house, there can be two homes. Therefore, tagging Arjun Singh's monthly income as part of the -7- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 deceased's family's monthly income is the result of a perverse reasoning. Arjun Singh's income has to be excluded from the deceased's family income, which would reduce the dependant family's income, as Mr. Bhatnagar admits, to a figure of 18471.65. ŵ⇃

16. But, this is not the end of the matter. The total sum of terminal dues received on account of the deceased's demise is a figure of 987358, from ŵ⇃ which, a monthly income of ŵ⇃

5183.63, on the basis of interest of 6.30% (maximum Fixed Deposit interest of bank applicable for staff) has been inferred. This item of the deceased's monthly income is sans material. It is not that the terminal dues received by the surviving family of the deceased have been wasted or misspent. The petitioner claims that the sum of money received in terminal dues has been spent in the treatment of the deceased and the petitioner's mother, besides drawing on the corpus of other investments that the family had.

17. It is not reasonable to think that any sum of money would have been spent out of the deceased's terminal dues received from the Bank on his treatment as such, because the terminal dues would have, in any case, been received after the deceased passed away. But, a perusal of the deceased's wife's statement of account from 03.10.2021 to 02.11.2021 shows that substantial withdrawals shown there could be the money spent on the deceased's wife's treatment, as she passed away soon after the deceased employee’s demise. What was spent in medical treatment of the deceased's wife is a matter that requires to be closely scrutinised, before drawing a conclusion if the entire sum of money paid in terminal benefits was available as investment with the deceased's family, yielding a monthly income. The proof of expenditure ought have been annexed by the petitioner, and, if not that, the petitioner should have been asked to produce the relevant vouchers etc. In the absence of a clear determination that the terminal dues were not spent on the deceased's wife's medical treatment, a blanket inference, that this sum of money was available to the deceased's family, and now the petitioner has a source of monthly income by interest, is patently flawed. -8- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024

18. The more important aspect in this calculation of denial for the petitioner is consideration of the family pension that the deceased's wife received for a short while. The deceased passed away on 05.03.2021, while his wife expired on 11.01.2022. She passed away, therefore, within the space of ten months after her husband's demise. The deceased's family, therefore, were in receipt of family pension for a very small period of time. This period of time cannot be regarded as one stabilising the family and bringing them out of the financial crisis, that they plunged into, upon the deceased employee’s sudden demise. If the widow would have lived on for a relatively longer period of time, it could be said that the family pension would account towards the deceased's dependants' family income. The extremely short- lived feature of the family pension in this case would not serve to reckon the deceased's dependents’ total income.

19. We were persuaded by Mr. Bhatnagar to accept his submission that family income has to be reckoned precisely on the date of the deceased's demise. Notwithstanding the fact that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right, but one created by statutory rules or employer's policy, carried in administrative circulars, as in this case, a policy, once there, has to be reasonably construed. It cannot be applied in an arbitrary manner. The purpose is to bail out the dependants of the deceased from financial crisis. A widow, surviving a few months after the employee’s death and receiving pension for a short period of time, cannot be regarded as a factor that would stabilise the dependent family members and enable them to tide over the financial crisis.

20. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we are of clear opinion that not only the deceased's other son's income, who is an independent man, has to be excluded from the calculation of the deceased's dependant's family income, but also the pension that the deceased employee’s widow received for a few months before she passed away, leaving behind the petitioner with no means. -9- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024

21. The reliance placed by Mr. Bhatnagar upon the authority of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh2, we are afraid, would not be of much assistance to the respondents. The reason is that the respondents have evaluated the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in manifest error, committing a blunder of numerical nature. They have added to the income of the deceased employee’s family, represented by the petitioner, sums of money that were not at all relevant to reckon, as already remarked.

22. Learned Counsel for the respondents has next placed reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court in General Manager, State Bank of India and others v. Anju Jain3. He has invited our attention to the following remarks in Anju Jain (supra) :

31. We are of the view that both the courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi- government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, the State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependants of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment.

23. It is true that it is always open to the employer to devise a formula to determine a threshold of eligibility, based on financial circumstances of the deceased’s family, in order to enable them to a consideration for compassionate appointment. There is nothing inherently unfair or discriminatory about it. But, the formula, once devised, as already said, cannot be applied in an arbitrary fashion in order to reject a claim for compassionate appointment. Considerations irrelevant under the employer’s 2 3 (200) 4 SCC 778 (2008) 8 SCC 475 -10- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 scheme or a perverse application of principles embodied in the scheme is not to be countenanced. It is true that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality in matters of public employment, but, compassionate appointment is a class that is constitutionally valid, if the employer chooses to provide for it, in terms of their policy. Once that policy is forged into statutory rules or circulars, there has to be an even-handed, fair and just application to all such claims, that are put forth, upon the demise of a deceased employee by his dependants, as defined under the scheme. It is not the respondents’ case that the petitioner is not a member of the deceased’s family, as defined under the scheme. They have discarded the claim on the basis of working out an income for the deceased’s family, that is absolutely not there.

24. There is not much cavil about the principle or the fact that a married son, living apart from the deceased’s family, with his wife and children, cannot have his income reckoned towards the deceased’s family’s income. The more subtle issue, that is involved here, is about the pension that was paid to the widow until she was alive for a short while - less than a year after the deceased’s demise. If the widow had lived for a reasonably long period of time, long enough for the petitioner, definitely a dependant of the deceased’s, to settle himself in life and get over the sudden crisis brought about by the deceased employee’s passing away from this mortal world, different conditions would have applied. The test, we think, that would be just and fair to apply, well-grounded in reasonableness, as understood under the Constitution, would be if the financial crises, that the employee’s sudden demise created, has blown over. Indeed, not in this case. The deceased passed away on 05.03.2021 and his widow died on 11.01.2022. The short spell of time that the family pension enured to the benefit of the deceased employee’s family, was not long enough to provide the petitioner with a reasonable degree of opportunity to find for himself suitable employment. The time period, we think, that would be reasonable, cannot be placed in a straight-jacket formula, but still, it should be long enough to enable a surviving and young dependant of the deceased employee to stake claim for -11- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 public employment or find other means of livelihood. Decidedly, in our opinion, a time period of less than a year is not that long, where the crisis brought on by the employee’s demise can be said to be a matter of history.

25. The respondents definitely faltered in not accounting for the money spent out of terminal dues on the deceased’s widow’s aliment, while alive. It had to be taken note of and counted out of the funds available for investment. If the medical expenditure was reimbursable and was actually reimbursed, it would be a different matter, but then, that finding has to be recorded. The evaluation of the petitioner’s claim, where a recurring monthly income has been read to the credit of the deceased employee’s family, has to be understood and revaluated in the aforesaid perspective. Likewise, revaluation of the petitioner’s claim must be one that places out of consideration the petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh’s salary of 15274 per ŵ⇃ mensem. Also, the family pension, which the wife received, while alive, must be discounted.

26. The respondents are, therefore, obliged to reconsider the petitioner’s claim with a different set of figures in terms of their policy. Else, the policy would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

27. The compassionate appointment policy, though cannot be modified by the Court about the parameters of entitlement for a candidate to establish his claim, but, it is not that the Court would fold its hands and permit an absolutely arbitrary, unfair and perverse application of the principles to evaluate a compassionate appointment scheme prescribed by the respondents’ policy, rule or circular itself. We think, in this case, there has been an arbitrary evaluation of the petitioner's claim, taking into consideration credits to the family income, that are absolutely not there.

28. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr is hereby quashed. Likewise, the report of the Committee of Officers dated 16.07.2024 and the decision of the Committee of Officers dated 29.08.2024 are also quashed. A mandamus is -12- WRIT - A No. 16506 of 2024 issued to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr and the Committee of Officers of the Bank, designated under the HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as modified by HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021, to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, bearing in mind the remarks carried in this judgment. Thereafter, orders shall be made on the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr.

29. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr. September 09, 2025 I. Batabyal (J.J. MUNIR) JUDGE ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad