Rajesh Basfore vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Partha Pratim Roy, J.:

The present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant, namely, Rajesh Basfore (in short, Rajesh) challenging a judgment dated 24.06.2026 passed by learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 8490 of 2026 which was preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Chief Manager – HRD of the Punjab National Bank (in short, PNB) rejecting Rajesh’s prayer for compassionate appointment contained in an application dated 05.06.2025.

For adjudication of the lis, the following dates would be necessary:

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for Rajesh submits that the learned single Judge erred in law in dismissing the writ petition on the rudiments of an observation that Rajesh did not challenge the order passed in the earlier writ petition on 10.11.2025 by which his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of academic qualification being oblivious of the fact that the order impugned in the second writ petition was passed by the competent authority upon review of the earlier decision and on a new ground that Rajesh did not fulfil the financial eligibility threshold. Furthermore, at the time of reconsideration of Rajesh’s claim he had admittedly acquired the minimum academic qualification for being considered for compassionate appointment to the post of Sub-Staff. He passed the Madhyamik Pariksha in the year 2003 and the Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2021. On the date of delivery of the judgment dated 18.11.2024 in the earlier writ petition being WPA 13469 of 2024 and also on the date of reconsideration of his claim, i.e., on 10.11.2025 Rajesh had the requisite academic qualification for the post of Sub-Staff.

He argues that the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition without dealing with the challenge thrown against the decision-making process determining the financial eligibility threshold and proceeding on an erroneous premise that such determination of financial eligibility cannot be touched in view of rejection of Rajesh’s earlier prayer for compassionate appointment.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the report submitted on behalf of the bank before the learned single Judge, as annexed at page 161 of the stay application, Mr. Bhattacharya contends that the monthly income of the family and the gross monthly salary were assessed to be Rs.17,493.90/- and Rs. 28,047.19/- respectively and 75% of the gross monthly salary was assessed to be Rs.21,035.39/-which is more than the monthly income of the family. In view thereof, Rajesh fulfils the financial eligibility threshold as specified under the Scheme of 2022 since the Scheme categorically provides that ‘if the monthly income of the family (as above), is less than 75% of the deceased employee’s last drawn gross monthly salary (net of taxes), the proposal for compassionate appointment can be considered’. Upon being satisfied that Rajesh fulfills the financial eligibility threshold, his claim was duly recommended by the respondent no.2.Such arguments, as urged, were glossed over by the learned single Judge and no finding was returned on the same.

Ms. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the bank denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya and submits that Rajesh’s father expired on 31.07.2018 and on the said date, the Scheme of 20.10.2014/13.10.16 was in operation. On 18.02.2022 when Rajesh’s claim was relegated to the bank for consideration by the learned single Judge in WPA 18425 of 2021, the Scheme of 2020 was in operation. In both the said Schemes the financial eligibility threshold was 60% of the last drawn monthly salary. Rajesh’s claim was rightly rejected by the order dated 10.11.2025 since the monthly income being Rs. 17,493.90/- was more than Rs.16,828.31/- being 60% of gross monthly salary.

She argues that a claim for compassionate appointment is required to be considered strictly in terms of the applicable Scheme. The bank cannot be directed in exercise of the authority of judicial review to do something which is beyond the Scheme and per se illegal. A result flowing from a Scheme is never an evil. The Court has no power to ignore the Scheme and the same must be given effect to whether the Court likes the results on it.

She contends that admittedly Rajesh’s claim was refused by the earlier order dated 16.04.2022 observing inter alia that Rajesh’s case ‘do not merit any further consideration as does not fulfil essential educational qualification required for consideration of Competent Authority for the posts of Part Time Sweeper, Peon & Clerk and monthly income of the family from all sources is more than 60% of the last drawn monthly salary (net of taxes) of the deceased employee. Therefore, request of Shri Rajesh Basfore cannot be acceded to’. The said order was upheld in the writ petition being WPA 13469 of 2022 observing inter alia that ‘the petitioner does not fulfil the essential educational qualification required for the posts of Part Time Sweeper, Peon and Clerk’. The said order was accepted by Rajesh and as no appeal was preferred, the same attained finality. In the said conspectus, the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition since the prayer made in the earlier writ petition being WPA 13469 of 2022 and the prayer made in the writ petition being WPA 8490 of 2024 is same and identical.

According to Ms. Roy Choudhury even assuming the bank had reconsidered Rajesh’s claim and taken a decision on 10.11.2025, such act does not nullify the assessment of Rajesh’s financial eligibility threshold, made in terms of the Scheme in operation which categorically provided that ‘compassionate appointment is to be granted only if the monthly income of the family from all sources is less than 60% of the last drawn monthly salary (net of taxes) of the employee’.

In reply, Mr. Bhattacharyasubmits that in the Scheme 20.10.2014/13.10.16, the financial eligibility criteria was that ‘the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution’ and for being entitled to ex-gratia lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment the ceiling specified was that the monthly income of the family from all sources should be less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary. The calculation of income as detailed in the chart at page 162 of the application for appropriate order would reveal that the total monthly income was calculated as Rs. 1,7493.90/- taking the value of enhanced family pension of Rs. 12,335.71/- though while Rajesh’s claim was reviewed, the family pension disbursed was Rs. 10,135.71/- and the figure of notional income from the net corpus specified to be Rs. 5158.19/- was an imaginary figure. Had such fact been taken into consideration, the monthly income would have been even less than Rs. 17,493.90/-.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties at length and we have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The issues that can be culled out from the adversarial arguments, as advanced, are as to whether the learned single Judge could have dismissed the writ petition only on the sole ground that Rajesh’s claim for compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground of lack of academic qualification had attained finality and as to whether while reviewing Rajesh’s claim, the bank ought to have applied the provisions of the Scheme of 2022.

A cause of action for a proceeding refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the petition.Indisputably, the cause of action in the earlier writ petition and in the second writ petition was not the same. In the order impugned in the present appeal the learned Judge did not observe that the present proceedings are barred by the rule of res judicata. In view thereof, the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition refusing to decide as to whether the determination of financial eligibility threshold by the order passed upon review is sustainablesince Rajesh’s claim for compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground of lack of academic qualification had attained finality.

The norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. [See the judgment delivered by a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. C. Santhosh vs State of Karnataka, reported in 2020 Supreme(SC) 237].

Pursuant to an order dated 27.04.2026 passed in WPA 8490 of 2026, a report was filed on behalf of the bank annexing a calculation sheet as annexed at page 161 of the application for appropriate order, the monthly income of the family and the gross monthly salary were assessed to be Rs.17,493.90/- and Rs. 28,047.19/- respectively and 75% of the gross monthly salary was assessed to be Rs.21,035.39/-which is more than the monthly income of the family. In view thereof, Rajesh fulfils the financial eligibility threshold as specified under the Scheme of 2022 and accordingly, his claim was recommended by the respondent no.2.

In the said calculation sheet, the monthly income from family pension was assessed to be Rs. 12,335.71/- being the enhanced pension though on the date of consideration, Champa was getting an amount of Rs.10,135/- towards family pension, as would be explicit from the account statement annexed to the exception filed by Rajesh, annexed at page 184 of the application for appropriate order. Taking into account the said amount of family pension (Rs.10,135/-), the monthly income would have been Rs. 15,293.19/- and 60% of the gross monthly salary would have been Rs. 16,828.31/-. Even if the Scheme of 20.10.2014/13.10.16 or the Scheme of 2020 is applied by considering the enhanced monthly family pension, then the monthly income would have been Rs.17,493.90/-, which is only Rs.665.59/- more than 60% of the gross monthly salary. Rejection of Rajesh’s claim on such narrow margin would have been contrary to the permissive rider in the Scheme of 2020 that requests for compassionate appointment consequent on death may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

A beneficent Scheme would be thrown out of gear in the event, a restrictive meaning is applied and benefits are not extended to an employee who died in harness. Such an interpretation, would be contrary to the object of the Scheme and cannot be construed to be an instance of misplaced sympathy or to be based upon a pretentious pulpit of morality.

For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order passed by the Chief Manager-HRD, PNB vide memo dated 10.11.2025 and the judgment dated 24.06.2026 passed by learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 8490 of 2026 are set aside and the respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to Rajesh in the post of Sub-Staff within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The present appeal and the connected application are, accordingly, disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.