Kamal Raj vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following the reliefs:-

The facts of the case are that petitioner is the son of Late Megh Pal Singh, who was an employee of Punjab National Bank and died while in service. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. His application dated 14.02.2020 was not processed as he was then 10th pass. He thereafter made a representation dated 21.05.2022 and, after passing Class 12th on 07.06.2024, submitted a fresh application dated 10.07.2024 along with the requisite documents. The competent authority, vide order dated 04.10.2024, rejected petitioner’s claim on the ground that the family did not fulfill the indigence criterion prescribed under the Bank’s compassionate appointment scheme. The Bank assessed the total monthly income of the family at Rs.33,824.83/-, which was stated to be more than 60% of the last drawn salary of the deceased employee, i.e. Rs.38,522.83/-. Aggrieved by the said rejection, petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, contending that the financial condition of the family was not correctly assessed by the Bank.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection is based upon an erroneous and mechanical assessment of the financial condition of the family. It is contended that petitioner’s father, Late Megh Pal Singh, died while in service on 29.12.2018 and the family was wholly dependent upon him. Petitioner initially applied for compassionate appointment on 14.02.2020 and his mother repeatedly pursued the claim thereafter. Since petitioner was then 10th pass, his claim was not processed, and after he passed Class 12th on 07.06.2024, he submitted a fresh application dated 10.07.2024. He further submits that petitioner is not seeking appointment as a matter of right, but seeks consideration in terms of the Bank’s own scheme, which requires a genuine assessment of the family’s financial condition.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bank has incorrectly computed the family income by including the family pension of Rs.11,875.55/- and the alleged income of petitioner’s two brothers, although they have their own families and do not provide regular or reliable financial assistance to the petitioner’s family. The terminal benefits received on the death of the deceased employee, it is submitted, were also wrongly treated as a source of income, whereas a substantial part thereof was utilized towards repayment of outstanding liabilities of the deceased amounting to about Rs.5,81,242/-. Learned counsel further submits that family pension is not included in the relevant eligibility parameters under Clause 8 of the Bank’s scheme and cannot be treated as regular monthly income for determining indigence. Petitioner also disputes the respondents’ description of the document relied upon by him as HRMD Circular No.495 dated 26.03.2020 and submits that the Bank cannot rely upon a different interpretation of its own scheme to defeat his claim.

Relying upon Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 and General Manager (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271, learned counsel submits that compassionate appointment, though an exception to the normal rule of recruitment, cannot be considered mechanically and the actual financial condition of the family, including its liabilities and other relevant circumstances, must be genuinely assessed. It is argued that the petitioner’s family is in dire financial distress and falls within the category of a “hand-to-mouth” family, struggling to meet basic necessities, and that the Bank failed to consider the material placed before it regarding the family’s liabilities, absence of regular assistance from the brothers and the petitioner’s actual financial circumstances. The impugned rejection, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the applicable scheme and settled principles of law.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment on compassionate grounds, as such appointment is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment and is governed strictly by the scheme applicable to the employees of the Bank. It is contended that the petitioner’s claim was duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable scheme. His earlier application could not be acted upon as he was only 10th pass and, after he acquired the requisite qualification and submitted a fresh application dated 10.07.2024, the same was duly examined and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 04.10.2024.

It is further submitted that the financial condition of the family was assessed in accordance with the prescribed criteria and the total monthly income was found to be Rs.33,824.83/-, as against the permissible limit of Rs.23,113.69/-, being 60% of the deceased employee’s last drawn salary of Rs.38,522.83/-. Learned counsel submits that the family pension and other sources of income were rightly taken into consideration while determining the financial condition of the family and that the petitioner cannot seek exclusion of relevant income merely because the same is inconvenient to his claim. The respondents also dispute the petitioner’s interpretation of the Bank’s circular and contend that the document relied upon by him does not represent the applicable instructions governing his claim.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s allegations regarding his brothers’ income, terminal benefits and family liabilities do not establish any illegality in the decision-making process of the Bank. 9. The competent authority considered the material available on record and, upon finding that the family did not satisfy the prescribed indigence criterion, rightly rejected the claim. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, it is submitted, do not confer an automatic right to compassionate appointment and cannot override the terms of the applicable scheme. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order calls for no interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the controversy is confined to the manner in which the financial condition of the deceased employee’s family was assessed while considering the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. There is no dispute that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the petitioner’s claim was required to be considered in accordance with the applicable Bank scheme. The question is whether the prescribed financial criteria were correctly applied. The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the family’s monthly income was Rs.33,824.83/-, against the permissible limit of Rs.23,113.69/-, being 60% of the deceased employee’s last drawn salary of Rs.38,522.83/-. The said calculation includes family pension of Rs.11,875.55/-. The petitioner has specifically contended that Clause 8 of the Bank’s Circular dated 26.03.2020 does not provide for inclusion of family pension while determining the monthly income for compassionate appointment. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate any provision in the applicable scheme authorising such inclusion. On excluding the family pension, the monthly income assessed by the respondents would come to Rs.21,949.28/-, which is below the permissible limit of Rs.23,113.69/-. Thus, even on the respondents’ own calculation, the family falls within the prescribed financial criterion. The inclusion of family pension has, therefore, materially affected the decision of the competent authority and resulted in rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

The fact that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment cannot justify an assessment contrary to the applicable scheme. The competent authority was required to consider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the scheme and the actual financial circumstances of the family. Since the rejection is founded upon an erroneous computation of family income, the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner’s claim is required to be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable scheme, treating the family pension as not forming part of the monthly income for the purpose of the 60% criterion. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.10.2024 is hereby quashed.

Respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable scheme in the light of this judgment within two months from today.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.