AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the communication/order dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure4) passed by the respondents may kindly be
quashed and set aside and further respondents may kindly be directed to give the appointment to petitioner as compassionate appointment for suitable
post.
(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€
Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that father of the petitioner was an employee of the respondentBank, and while being posted
as Head Cashier, he expired on
21.05.2015, due to severe illness.
The petitioner’s father was suffering from malignancy, and thus, was undergoing treatment at Medanta Hospital situated at Gurgaon, Haryana
and remained hospitalized for a very long period.
This Court has seen from the record that exorbitant expenditure has been incurred on the treatment of malignancy of the petitioner’s father.
The petitioner has moved an application (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) seeking compassionate appointment, on account of death of his father,
which was duly recommended by the lower authorities to the higher authorities. The scheme for compassionate appointment, as was in existence in
the respondent-Bank, is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Scheme for Compassionate Appointment to a dependent family member of a deceased employee/employee retired on medical grounds
NAME OF THE SCHEME:
The Scheme is to be called the “Scheme for Compassionate Appointment to a Dependent Family Member of a Deceased Employee/Employee
Retired on Medical Grounds due to Incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 yearsâ€.
OBJECT OF THE SCHEME:
To enable family of a deceased employee/employee retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years, tide over the
sudden financial crisis.
DEFINITIONS UNDER THE SCHEME:
(i) ‘Employee’ would mean and include only a confirmed regular employee who was serving full time or part-time on scale wages, at the time
of death/retirement on medical grounds, before reaching age of 55 years. The term does not include any one engaged on contract/temporary/casual or
any person who is paid on commission basis.
 (ii) ‘Bank’ means Punjab National Bank.
(iii) ‘Board’ means Board of Directors of Punjab National Bank.
(iv) ‘Competent Authority’ means an Official as approved by the Board in terms of the Scheme.
(v) ‘Executive Director' would mean Executive Director of Punjab National Bank.
(vi) ‘General Manager’ would mean General Manager ofPunjab National Bank, an Executive of the Bank designated as such, and would
include an Executive who may work or officiate in a stop-gap arrangement as such, irrespective of his actual designation.
(vii) ‘Scheme’ would mean “Scheme for CompassionateAppointment to a Dependent Family Member of a Deceased Employee/Employee
Retired on Medical Grounds due to Incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 yearsâ€.
COVERAGE:
4.1 To a dependent family member of a permanent employee of the Bank who -
(a) Dies while in service (including death by suicide)
(b) Is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitationbefore reaching the age of 55 years. (Incapacitation is to be certified by a duly appointed
Medical Board in a Government Medical College/Government District Head Quarter Hospitals/Panel of Doctors nominated by the Bank for the
purpose).
4.2 For the purpose of the Scheme, “employee†would mean and include only a confirmed regular employee who was serving full time or part-
time on scale wages, at the time of death/retirement on medical grounds, before reaching age of 55 years and does not include any one engaged on
contract/temporary/casual or any person who is paid on commission basis.
DEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBER:
5.1 Spouse; or
5.2 Wholly dependent son(including legally adopted son); or
5.3 Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or
5.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee
AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO MAKE COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
6.1 Chairman & Managing Director.
6.2 Executive Director holding current charge of Chairman & Managing Director.
6.3 Board of Directors in special types of cases.
6.4 While dealing with proposals for appointment oncompassionate grounds in otherwise eligible cases, where disciplinary action was pending against
the deceased employee/employee retired on medical grounds or if the deceased employee was involved in serious financial irregularities,
embezzlement of funds, committing frauds, etc., bank will continue to abide by the guidelines issued by the Government of India, requiring
consideration and decision in each case by the Board of the Bank/Authority appointed by the Board.
POSTS TO WHICH APPOINTMENTS CAN BE MADE:
7.1 The appointment shall be made in the clerical and sub-staff cadre only.
ELIGIBILITY:
8.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and
8.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment shouldbe eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment
Rules.
EXEMPTIONS:
9.1 Compassionate Appointment under the Scheme are exempted from observance of the following requirements:
9.1.1 Normal Recruitment Procedure i.e., without theagency of selection like IBPS/Employment Exchange, Recruitment Board of Bank, etc.
9.1.2 The ban orders on filling up of posts issued by Government of India or any controlling authority.
RELAXATIONS:
10.1 Upper age limit may be relaxed wherever foundto be necessary. The lower age limit should, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years of
age.
(Note-1: Age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment;
Note-2: Authority competent to take a final decision for making compassionate appointment in a case shall be competent to grant relaxation of age
limit also for making such appointment).
TIME LIMIT FOR CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS:
11.1 Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or
retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case.
11.2 However, Bank can consider request forcompassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took
place long back, even five years ago. While considering such belated requests, it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate
appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the employee in order to relieve it from economic distress. The
very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some
dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to make
appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases may, therefore, be taken only at the Board level.
DETERMINATION/AVAILABILITY OF VACANCIES:
12.1 Appointment on compassionate grounds shall bemade only on regular basis and that too, only if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are
available.
12.2 Compassionate appointment shall be made uptoa maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in clerical cadre or
vacancies identified in the substaff category. The Bank shall hold back 5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by appointment on
compassionate grounds. A person selected for appointment on compassionate grounds should be adjusted in the recruitment roster against appropriate
category, viz., SC/ST/OBC/General Category, depending upon the category to which he/she belongs.
12.3 Widow appointed on compassionate ground uponre-marriage will be allowed to continue in service, even after re-marriage.
WHERE THERE IS AN EARNING MEMBER:
13.1 In deserving cases, even when there is alreadyan earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for
compassionate appointment with the prior approval of the competent authority of the bank who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy
himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified, having regard to the number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the employee,
income of the earning member as also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the employee and whether
he should not be a source of support to other members of the family.
13.2 In cases where any member of the family of thedeceased or medically retired employee is already in employment and is not supporting the other
members of the family of the deceased employee, extreme caution has to be observed in ascertaining the economic distress of the members of the
family of the deceased employee so that, the facility of appointment on compassionate ground is not circumvented and misused by putting forward the
ground that the member of the family already employed is not supporting the family.
MISSING EMPLOYEE:
Cases of missing employees are also covered under the scheme for compassionate appointment subject to the following conditions:-
14.1 A request to grant the benefit of compassionateappointment can be considered only after a lapse of at least 2 years from the date from which the
Employee has been missing, provided that:
(i) An FIR to this effect has been lodged with the Police,
(ii) The missing person is not traceable, and
(iii) The competent authority feels that the case is genuine;
14.2 This benefit will not be applicable to the case of an Employee:-
(i) Who had less than two years to retire on the date from which he has been missing; or
(ii) Who is suspected to have committed fraud, orsuspected to have joined any terrorist organisation or suspected to have gone abroad.
14.3 Compassionate appointment in the case of amissing employee also would not be a matter of right as in the case of others and it will be subject to
fulfilment of all the conditions, including the availability of vacancy, laid down for such appointment under the scheme;
14.4 While considering such a request, the results ofthe Police investigation should also be taken into account; and
14.5 A decision on any such request forcompassionate appointment should be taken only at the level of the Chairman & Managing Director of the
Bank.â€
PROCEDURE:
(a) The prescribed proforma for ascertaining necessaryinformation and processing the cases of compassionate appointment is enclosed as per
Annexure-II & III. Check list is available at AnnexureIV.
(b) Some suitable Officer from the concernedBranch/Circle/HO Division, as the case may be, would meet the members of the family of the employee
in question immediately after his death to advise and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant should be called in
person at the very first stage and advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by him/her.
(c) An application for appointment on compassionateground shall be considered by the Committee of officers consisting of three officers as under:
• General Manager-PAD/HRD â€" Chairman of the Committee
• Deputy General Manager-PAD/HRD - Member
• Assistant General Manager - PAD/HRD â€" Member
The Committee shall meet during the second week of every month to consider cases received during the previous month. The applicant may also be
granted personal hearing by the committee, if necessary, for better appreciation of facts of the case. The recommendation of the committee shall be
placed before the Competent Authority for a decision. If the Competent Authority disagrees with the committee’s recommendation, such cases
may be referred to the Board for decision.
UNDERTAKING FOR MAINTENANCE OF THEFAMILY OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE:
The person appointed on compassionate grounds under the Scheme, shall give an undertaking in writing as per Annexure-II that he/she will maintain
properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased employee in question, and in case it is proved subsequently (at any time) that
the family members are being neglected or are not maintained properly by him/her, his or her appointment may be terminated forthwith. This clause
shall be incorporated as one of the conditions in the offer of appointment applicable only in the case of appointment on compassionate ground.
REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN POST/PERSON:
When a person has been appointed on compassionate ground to a particular post, the set of circumstances, which led to such appointment, should be
deemed to have ceased to exist. Therefore â€
(a) He/she should strive in his/her career like his/hercolleagues for future advancement and any request for appointment to any higher post on
considerations of compassion shall invariably be rejected.
(b) An appointment on compassionate ground cannotbe transferred to any other person and any request for the same on consideration of compassion
shall invariably be rejected.
SENIORITY:
A person appointed on compassionate ground in a particular year may be placed at the bottom of all the candidates recruited/appointed through direct
recruitment, promotion, etc. in that year, irrespective of the date of joining of the candidate on compassionate ground.
TERMINATION OF SERVICE:
The Compassionate Appointment Scheme can be terminated on the ground of noncompliance of any condition stated in the offer of appointment after
providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him/her to explain why his/her services should
not be terminated for non-compliance of condition(s) in the offer of appointment and it is not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in the
Disciplinary Action and Procedure therefor.
In order to check misuse of this provision, the power of termination of service for noncompliance of the conditions in the offer of compassionate
appointment shall vest only with the Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank. 20. GENERAL:
(i) Appointment made on grounds of compassion shallbe done in such a way that persons appointed to the post do have the essential educational and
technical qualifications and experience required for the post consistent with the requirement of maintenance of efficiency of administration.
(ii) It is not the intention to restrict employment of afamily member of the deceased or medically retired sub-staff employee to an erstwhile sub-staff
post only. As such, a family member of such erstwhile sub-staff employee can be appointed to a clerical post for which he/she is educationally
qualified, provided a vacancy in clerical post exists for this purpose.
(iii) An application for compassionate appointmentshall, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received
the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective
assessment of the financial condition of the family shall be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the
various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc.
(iv) Compassionate appointment shall be madeavailable to the person concerned if there is a vacancy meant for compassionate appointment and he or
she is found eligible and suitable under the scheme.
(v) Requests for compassionate appointmentconsequent on death or retirement on medical grounds of erstwhile sub-staff may be considered with
greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.â€
The aforementioned application submitted by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment however, was declined by the respondent-Bank vide
order dated 15.02.2016 (Annexure-R/3) and the same has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure-4).
As per learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner has submitted the application for compassionate appointment under the aforequoted
scheme, therefore, he ought to have been given such appointment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank & Anr. Vs.
M.Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412, relevant portion of which reads as under:
 “ . . . . . . . . . . . .
In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] , while emphasising that a
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140,
para 2)
‘2. … The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a
member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle
his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered
to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone
can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The
provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable
treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief
against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this
connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The
exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate
expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.’
***
Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to
be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate
appointment dehors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionateemployment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground isto meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the
breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the
financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissibleonly to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or
daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.†(emphasis supplied)
Applying these principles to the case in hand, as discussed earlier, the respondent's father died on 10-10-1998 while he was serving as a clerk in
the appellant Bank and the respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme “Dying in Harness Scheme†dated 8-
51993 which was in force at that time. The appellant Bank rejected the respondent's claim on 30-6-1999 recording that there are no indigent
circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7-11-2001, the appellant Bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue
of the respondent's employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate
appointment arose when Circular No. 154 of 1993 dated 8-5-1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in Jaspal Kaur case [(2007) 9
SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578] , the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex gratia payment. The Circular dated 14-2-
2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per
Circular of 1993.
It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme providing only for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment stands superseded by the
2014 Scheme which has revived the scheme providing for compassionate appointment. As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide
compassionate appointment. Under these circumstances, the appellant Bank is not justified in contending that the application for compassionate
appointment of the respondent cannot be considered in view of passage of time.
Insofar as the contention of the appellant Bank that since the respondent's family is getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits,
in our view, is of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of the 1993 Scheme says that in case the
dependant of the deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the Bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the
age of majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, if the applicant is
a minor, the Bank would keep the appointment open till the minor attains majority.
In Balbir Kaur v. SAIL [(2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] , while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on
compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit
Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to.
Rejecting that contention in para 13, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 503)
“13. … But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden
jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family â€
this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and
it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to
the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner,
but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.â€
Referring to SAIL case [(2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] , the High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment
of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the
Bank that the respondents' family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
Considering the scope of the scheme “Dying in Harness Scheme 1993†then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court rightly directed the appellant Bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per
the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference.
So far as the cases in Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 267 of 2008 are concerned, they are similar and those respondents are
similarly placed and the appeals preferred by the Bank are liable to be dismissed. The appellant Bank is directed to consider the case of the
respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 266 and 267 of 2008.
In the result, all the appeals preferred by the appellant Bank are dismissed and the appellant Bank is directed to consider the case of the
respondents for compassionate appointment as per the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the employee concerned. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.â€
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that a well reasoned order has been passed by the respondent-Bank. The affluence of the family
of the petitioner shows that they are not in the requirement of the compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the precedent law of General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr., reported
in (2004) 7 SCC 271, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
“8. This recommendation of the Indian Banks' Association was accepted in the Scheme which was finally formulated on 1-1-1998 where the same
criteria for determining the financial condition of the family was laid down. It may be noted that the express language for appointment on
compassionate grounds reads as follows:
“Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in
favour of dependants of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood.â€
On the basis of the criteria as recommended by the Indian Banks' Association and adopted by the appellant Bank, it could not be said that the
family of the late K.N. Tiwary had been left in “penury†or “without any means of livelihoodâ€. The particulars of their income have been
noted in their application and it certainly could not be said on the basis thereof that the respondents were living hand to mouth. The Division Bench
erred in diluting this criteria of penury to one of “not very well-to-doâ€.
In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ application of the
respondents.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the Division Bench is overturned and the order of the learned Single Judge is upheld. There will
be no order as to costs.â€
Apart from the aforesaid precedent law, learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265;
(ii) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. M.T.Latheesh, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350;
(iii) State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Somvir Singh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778;
(iv) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571;
(v) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Surya Narain Tripathi, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 739;
(vi) Uco Bank (United Commercial Bank) & Ors. Vs. Devi Kishan Harijan (D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No.722/2008 decided on 21.12.2016);
(vii) Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412.
Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the object of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden
financial crisis on account of death of the bread earner, and the eligibility therefor is that the family is indigent and deserves immediate employment
assistance for relieving such family of the financial destitution.
Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the eligibility in the policy cannot be overlooked, and strictly in terms of the same, a careful
exercise has been made by the respondents, after calculating the family pension, terminal benefits, employment of one son in private sector, the
valuation of the house of the family, and therefore, the outcome of the authorities was well justified, and in accordance with the policy, as they did not
find the family to be indigent enough to be given such compassionate appointment.
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar.
In the precedent law of Canara Bank (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, has categorically held that the grant of family pension and terminal
benefits cannot be treated as a substitute of providing the employment assistance, so as to become a ground for denial of compassionate appointment.
Furthermore, in the instant case, the other grounds taken by the respondents for denial of such appointment is the value of the house of the family,
which includes two sons and one daughter, and in the present times, on the rise of inflation rate and cost of living in the society, the house, which has
the value of Rs.50 to 80 lacs cannot be taken as a reason for disqualifying the petitioner from compassionate appointment, and if taken to be so, then
the same does not come in the right taste, as these are the minimum assets that every family possesses, and the order dated 15.02.2016 cannot be said
to be an order, which would reflect that the petitioner’s family was so affluent, which would not need the compassionate appointment.
The Bank employee rendering services for so long was bound to have these minimum assets, which have been reflected in the order dated
15.02.2016, but the point of assessment made by the respondents should have been that a well educated family is still in doldrums on account of death
of the bread earner and the assets, like house, cannot become a ground for non-extension of the immediate employment assistance, like compassionate
appointment, so as to enable the family to overcome such shock, more particularly, when there is a scheme for compassionate appointment, then the
relief of compassionate appointment was required to be given.
However, the scheme and right to consideration for compassionate appointment has not been denied by the respondents.
This Court also takes note of the fact that the value of the house and one brother being in private sector do not become an impediment from
compassionate appointment for the family in question, which is not only grief stricken, but also has been completely washed out in the prolonged
treatment of malignancy of the deceased father of the petitioner. The medical treatment costs, as examined by this Court from the record passed on
by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows exorbitant expenditure, which has been incurred upon the treatment of malignancy.
This Court is of the opinion that the precedent law of Canara Bank (supra) is clearly applicable to the present set of facts, as the respondents have
denied the compassionate appointment only while taking into account the family assets, retiral benefits and private job of one of the sons, whereas the
assessment does not induce confidence, in light of the fact that these are the minimum requirements, which cannot deprive the family from the
security of compassionate appointment.
Thus, while following the precedent law of Canara Bank (supra), this Court allows the present writ petition, and while quashing and setting aside
the impugned communication/order dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure-4), the respondents are directed to provide compassionate appointment to the
petitioner on a suitable post, as per his own eligibility. within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.