Summary
Conflicting two-judge decisions on which compassionate-appointment scheme governs a pending application required consideration by a larger Bench. One line applied the scheme in force when the request was considered; another applied the earlier scheme under which the claim arose. The Court requested placement before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench, without deciding the claimant’s entitlement.
Issues
- Whether a pending compassionate-appointment request was governed by the former appointment scheme or its replacement providing ex gratia assistance.
Provisions considered
- Clause 15(vi), SBI Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount, circulated 4 August 2005The replacement scheme’s abolition of compassionate appointments gave rise to the disputed treatment of the pending request; its ultimate application was left for the larger Bench. (¶¶ 1–3, 7–10)
Held
- Raj Kumar and MGB Gramin Bank proceeded on absence of a vested right and application of the scheme in force at consideration. Canara Bank proceeded on the earlier scheme governing the claim notwithstanding its later replacement. The two lines, including the cited Jaspal Kaur decision, emanated from two-judge Benches. (¶ 4–8)
- The inconsistent principles could not be reconciled and required consideration by a Bench of at least three judges. The Registry was requested to place the papers before the Chief Justice to constitute a Bench of appropriate strength to dispose of the petition. (¶ 9–11)
Result
Matter referred for consideration by a larger Bench; no final determination of the compassionate-appointment claim in this order.