Summary
The Court dismissed a dependent’s suit for compassionate appointment because the family income exceeded the eligibility threshold under the applicable Bank of Baroda scheme. Compassionate appointment was a concession governed by the scheme’s conditions, which courts could not rewrite. The widow’s employment income and family pension had to be considered under the prescribed formula.
Issues
- Whether the dependent satisfied the financial eligibility conditions of the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme.
- Whether a court could direct appointment without applying the scheme’s income formula.
Provisions considered
- Important points, clauses (b) and (c), Bank of Baroda compassionate-appointment scheme, 1998The scheme required penury and monthly income below sixty per cent of the deceased employee’s relevant emoluments, calculated under its stated formula. The family’s income did not meet that condition. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Held
- Compassionate appointment creates no vested right and is an exception intended to relieve immediate financial hardship after an employee dies in service. Every applicable eligibility condition must be fulfilled; courts cannot add to, subtract from or rewrite the employer’s scheme, whether exercising judicial review or deciding a civil suit. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The 1998 scheme required consideration of available terminal resources and liabilities, notional interest and other monthly income including dependent earnings, pension and investments. The High Court erred in overlooking those express financial conditions by relying on decisions arising under different facts and schemes. (¶¶ 13, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The widow’s salary and pension placed family income above the prescribed threshold and above the deceased employee’s monthly emoluments. The respondent therefore failed financial eligibility. His argument that he possessed the educational qualification for a peon’s post did not overcome that independent disqualification. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The decree directing compassionate appointment could not stand. The Bank’s appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the respondent’s suit dismissed, with each side bearing its own costs. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24)
Result
Bank’s appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and respondent’s suit dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs; pending applications disposed of.