Summary
A Central Bank of India employee retired prematurely in 2015 on medical incapacitation, and his son applied for compassionate appointment under the Bank's scheme. The son was then working as a clerk with ICICI Bank but described himself as unemployed, resigning only months later. A committee rejected the claim because the family's monthly income exceeded the scheme's ceiling of 60% of the employee's last gross salary. The Bombay High Court directed consideration, holding that the family's financial condition could not defeat the claim. The Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to equality, available only strictly under the governing scheme, to relieve sudden financial crisis. Financial eligibility criteria are valid and must be applied strictly. The son had also suppressed his employment, which alone defeated his writ petition. The appeal was allowed.
Issues
- Whether a claim for compassionate appointment could be allowed although the family's income exceeded the financial ceiling in the employer's scheme.
- Whether suppression of the applicant's own employment disentitled him to relief.
Held
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, meant to help the family of a deceased or medically incapacitated employee tide over a sudden crisis. It excludes equally or more deserving candidates, so it must be considered strictly under the applicable scheme, and there is no right outside the scheme, as Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Raj Kumar hold. (¶¶ 16, 20, 22)
- Rules prescribing financial criteria for compassionate appointment are valid and must be construed strictly. Otherwise the quota would be used by families less in need than others in acute distress. The family's estimated monthly income exceeded 60% of the employee's last gross salary even without counting the applicant's own salary, so the committee rightly rejected the claim. (¶¶ 13, 14, 21, 23)
- Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, Balbir Kaur and Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale did not hold that financial condition is irrelevant to compassionate appointment. Canara Bank in fact affirmed that the family's financial position must be examined. The High Court erred in reading them otherwise. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The applicant was employed with ICICI Bank when he applied but represented himself as unemployed. That suppression of a material fact was alone enough to reject his writ petition. (¶¶ 11, 12, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment directing consideration of the respondent for compassionate appointment is set aside; no order as to costs.