Supreme Court Dismisses Compassionate Appointment Appeal, Calls for Hand-to-Mouth Conditions

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has raised concerns about the conflicting judicial opinions regarding the application of compassionate appointment schemes. The primary question is whether the scheme that was in effect at the time of an employee’s death or the scheme prevailing when the compassionate appointment application is considered should apply. This issue has been at the center of multiple legal disputes, with differing judgments from various courts.

In the present case, the Court reviewed the situation where the respondent's father passed away in 2001, and the family sought an appointment under the 1993 scheme. However, a new scheme—the 2005 scheme—was introduced during the course of the litigation. This raised the legal dilemma of which scheme should govern the respondent’s case. The Court's observations bring to light the complexities of compassionate appointments, especially when schemes are amended or replaced over time.

Case Overview:

• The respondent’s father passed away before retirement in 2001.
• The respondent applied for compassionate appointment under the 1993 scheme.
• During litigation, a 2005 scheme was introduced by Canara Bank, which offered a lump-sum ex-gratia paymentand discontinued appointments under the 1993 scheme.
• The legal question: Should the compassionate appointment be granted under the 1993 scheme (existing at the time of death) or the 2005 scheme (introduced later)?

Conflicting Judicial Opinions on Applicable Scheme:

• Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015):
  • Held that compassionate appointment claims should not be decided based on a scheme introduced after the death of the employee.
• State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019):
  • The matter was referred to a larger bench due to the conflicting views regarding the applicable scheme.
• Previous Court Decisions:
  • Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006):
    • Held that the 2001 rules should apply, as the 2003 rules were not in effect when the claim was made.
  • Canara Bank case (2015):
    • Agreed with Abhishek Kumar in applying the scheme prevailing at the time of death.
  • SBI v. Raj Kumar (2010) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh (2014):
    • Held that only the new scheme should apply and there is no vested right for considering the old scheme.
  • N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka (2020):
    • Stated that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration should apply, not those at the time of death.

The Court's Observations on Retrospective Application:

• In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas (2020), the Supreme Court reiterated that the policy at the time of death should apply unless the subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.
• The Court questioned whether a policy for compassionate appointment could be applied retrospectively, calling it a debatable issue.

Disagreement with Canara Bank Decision:

• Canara Bank's Interpretation:
  • The Canara Bank case allowed compassionate appointments even after terminal benefits and family pensions were provided.
  • Clause 3.2 of the 1993 Scheme allowed appointments to remain open until a minor attained majority.
• Supreme Court's Disagreement:
  • The Court disagreed with the interpretation of Clause 3.2 in Canara Bank.
  • The Court stated that Clause 3.2 should be seen as a benevolent provision to cover exceptional cases and not as a way to grant appointments after receiving terminal benefits.

Final Ruling:

• Respondent’s Background:
  • The respondent’s father left behind his widow, the respondent, and three married daughters.
  • Only the widow and son were considered dependents, as the daughters were married and settled.
• No Severe Hardship:
  • The Court concluded that the family did not face the kind of severe financial hardship that could only be alleviated by compassionate appointment.
• Dismissal of the Appeal:
  • The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that compassionate appointments should only be granted to alleviate genuine financial hardship, not merely to address a fall in the standard of living.
  • The Court highlighted that "hand-to-mouth" conditions are a necessary criterion for such appointments.

Case Title: CANARA BANK VERSUS AJITHKUMAR G. K., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2025

Attachement: