CANARA BANK AND ANR. versus M. MAHESH KUMAR

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 15-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015]9S.C.R. 724 
CANARABANKANDANR. 
v. 
M. MAHESH KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No.260/2008 etc.) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Appointment- Compassionate appointment- Claim for 
- Under compassionate appointment scheme of 1993 of the 
employer-Bank - Rejection of claim by the Bank - During 
pendency of the case for seeking consideration of the claim, 
compassionate appointment scheme replaced with the 
D scheme of'ex-gratia payment' of 2005- Entitlement to the 
claim of compassionate appointment - Held: Claim of 
compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular 
year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme 
that came into force much after the claim - In the present 
E case, cause of action arose when 1993 scheme was in force, 
hence the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme -
The circular whereby 2005 scheme was brought in, being an 
administrative/executive order, cannot have retrospective 
F effect- Claimant's family getting family pension and terminal 
benefits is of no consequence in considering the application 
of compassionate appointment - Direction to Bank to 
consider the application of the claimant as per 1993 scheme. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. TheobjectoftheSchemedatedS.05.1993 · 
vide Circular No.154/1993 for "compassionate 
appointment" is to help dependants of employees of the 
724 
CANARA BAN KAND ANR. v. M. MAH ESH KUMAR 
725 
employer-Bank· who die or become totally and A 
permanently disabled while in harness and to overcome 
the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden 
stoppage of the main source of income. The employment 
under the scheme will be considered only if there are 
indigent circumstances necessitating employment to B 
one of the dependants and the deceased employee's 
service record is unblemished. Mere eligibility will not 
vest a right for claiming employment. [Para 9] [732-H; 
733-A-C] 
2. Claim of compassionate appointment under a 
scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light 
of the subsequent scheme that came into force much 
after the claim. In the present case, the cause of action 
c 
to be considered for compassionate appointment arose D 
when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in 
force. Thus, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 
Scher:ne providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular 
dated 14.2.2005 being an administrati.\re or executive 
order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take E 
away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular 
of 1993. [Paras 11and13] [734-G; 738-C-D] 
State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur(2007) 9 SCC 
571: 2007 (2) SCR 101; Bhawani Prasad Sankar vs. Union F 
of India & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 209: 2011 (4) SCR 630 - relied 
on. 
3. The 2005 Scheme providing only for ex-gratia 
payment in lieu of compassionate appointment stands G 
superseded by the Scheme of 2014 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 H 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A contending that the application for compassionate 
appointment of the respondent cannot be considered 
in view of passage of time. [Para 14] [738-E, F] 
4. The respondent's family getting family pension 
8 and terminal benefits is of no consequence in 
considering the application for compassionate 
appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in 
case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered 
appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of 
c appointment open till the minor attains the age of 
majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal 
benefits is of no consequence. [Para 15] [738-G-H; 739-
A-B] 
0 
BalbirKaur&Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. 
(2000) 6 sec 493: 2000 (3) SCR 1053 - relied on. 
5. 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 
E of the concerned employee. [Para 19] [740-F] 
Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 
4 SCC 468; MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 
13 SCC 583: 2013 (10) SCR 1 ; Umesh KumarNagpalvs. 
F State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138: State of Manipur 
vs. Md. Rajaodin (2003) 7 SCC 511: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 
107 Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.