BANK OF BARODA & ORS versus BALJIT SINGH

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 21-06-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
BANK OF BARODA & ORS
v.
BALJIT SINGH
(Civil Appeal No(s). 624 of 2017)
JUNE 21, 2023
[B. V. NAGARATHNA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Criterion
regarding financial status, non-fulfilment of – Held: Appointment
of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested
right – It is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of
the Scheme applicable that he/she could be considered for
compassionate appointment – In the present case, the 1998 Scheme
applicable to the case of the respondent disentitles a candidate for
compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula
for calculation of monthly income if the same is not less than 60%
of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time
of his death – Since, the monthly income of the family was not less
than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased (respondent’s
father) was drawing at the time of his death, the case of the
respondent cannot be considered on compassionate basis – High
Court erred in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court
and restoring the judgment of Trial Court – Judgment of High Court
set aside – Suit of the respondent seeking declaration and mandatory
injunction vis-à-vis his appointment in the appellant-Bank on
compassionate basis, dismissed – Suit.
Suit – Relief of compassionate appointment sought – Held:
Eligibility for compassionate appointment must be as per the
applicable scheme – Courts cannot substitute a scheme or add or
subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review – This
would also apply to a suit filed seeking the relief of compassionate
appointment – Service Law.
Balbir Kaur and Another vs. Steel Authority of India
Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 493 : [2000] 3 SCR 1053 –
distinguished.
General Manager (D&PB) and Others vs. Kunti Tiwary
(2004) 7 SCC 271; N.C. Santhosh vs. State of
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 977 : 2023 INSC 584
977
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Karnataka (2019) 7 SCC 617; State of Himachal
Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285 : [2019]
1 SCR 533; Indian Bank vs. Promila (2020) 2 SCC
729 : [2020] 1 SCR 408; State of Himachal Pradesh
vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 : [2019] 2 SCR
432 – relied on.
Mohd. Farooq Bhati vs. S.B.B.J. (2009) 2 SCT 353 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 3 SCR 1053
distinguished
Para 8
[2019] 1 SCR 533
relied on
Para 14
[2020] 1 SCR 408
relied on
Para 14
[2019] 2 SCR 432
relied on
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 624 of
2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2015 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 338 of 2011.
Ms. Praveena Gautam, Pawan Shukla, Ms. Indira Goswami, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Himanshu Sharma, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Rahul Jasoria, Ram Nivas
Sharma, Arun Raghav, Nitin Sharma, Digvijay Raghav, Rajesh Srivastava,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.338 of 2011 dated
11.12.2015. By the said judgment, the High Court has set aside the
judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 16.12.2009 passed in C.A.
No.75 of 2008 and has restored the judgment of the Trial Court passed
in Original Suit No.201 of 2005. Consequently, the relief sought for by
the respondent in the suit, i.e., declaration and mandatory injunction vis-
a-vis his appointment in the appellant-Bank on compassionate basis has
been granted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent’s
father who was working in the appellant-Bank, died in harness on
16.05.1999. As on that date, the appellant-Bank had a Scheme in place
for appointment of dependents of the deceased employees on
compassionate grounds which was issued on 18.08.1998.
3. It is the case of the respondent herein that on the death of the
respondent’s father in harness, his mother made an application for
appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds to the post of
Peon under the 1998 Scheme. The said application for compassionate
appointment was filed on 21.02.2000. During the pendency of the said
application under consideration, the appellant-Bank announced another
Scheme for appointment of the dependents of deceased employees on
compassionate grounds on 10.03.2004. Be that as it may, four years
subsequent to the death of his father, another representation on behalf
of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.