CANARA BANK versus AJITHKUMAR G.K.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 11-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 27 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 963 : 2025 INSC 184
Canara Bank 
v. 
Ajithkumar G.K.
(Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025)
11 February 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Father of the respondent passed away while in service of the 
appellant. A scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, 
formulated by the appellant and contained in Circular No. 154/93 
dated 8th May, 1993, was in force when such death occurred. The 
issues inter alia were: 1) Whether the Division Bench of the High 
Court was unjustified in not allowing the intra-court appeal of the 
appellant and in upholding the judgment of the Single Judge while 
directing the compassionate appointment of respondent at a point 
of time when he was past 44 (forty-four) years of age; 2) Whether 
there was a lapse of time for compassionate appointment after the 
respondent’s father passed away; 3) Whether there was a proper 
and reasonable assessment of the financial condition of the family 
consequent upon death of the respondent’s father; and 4) Whether 
relaxation in age ought to have been granted to the respondent.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Lapse of time, if 
a major factor for denying compassionate appointment – Age 
of the claimant, if a determinative factor:
Held: One of the foremost factors for appointment on compassionate 
ground is that the same should be offered at the earliest – Unless 
appointment is made soon after the need to mitigate hardship 
arises, tiding over the immediate financial crisis owing to (i) sudden 
premature and untimely death of the deceased employee or  
(ii) medical incapacitation resulting in the employee’s unfitness to 
continue in service, for which benevolence is shown by offering 
an appointment may not exist and thereby the very object of such 
appointment could stand frustrated – It is not prudent or wise to 
reject a claim only because of the time taken by the court(s) to 
decide the issue before it – Lapse of time could, however, be a 
major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the 
* Author
964
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
claim is lodged belatedly – A presumption is legitimately drawn in 
cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/
incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial 
assistance – However, what would be a reasonable time would 
largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment 
under consideration – If any time limit has been prescribed for making 
an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of 
time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection – In the instant 
case the death of the respondent’s father, in this case, occurred 
in December 2001 – Now, it is 2025 – The respondent cannot be 
blamed for the delay, since he was diligently pursuing his claim 
before the appellant and thereafter before the High Court – Thus, 
irrespective of how old the respondent is presently, his age cannot 
be determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a consideration 
of the same on merits. [Paras 25, 26, 27 and 28]
Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Assessment of 
financial condition of deceased’s family cannot be brushed aside:
Held: In the instant case, only the deceased’s spouse and son 
(respondent) could count as dependants – If the respondent’s father 
would have received a pension amount of Rs. 6398/- and burdened 
to feed himself as well as his two dependants, the amount of family 
pension initially sanctioned, i.e., Rs. 4637.92 could not have been 
seen as insufficient or inadequate for feeding two mouths – It is 
also not in dispute that the net terminal benefits in a sum of Rs. 
3.09 lakh paid to the respondent/his mother would have been 
the same amount which the deceased would have received as 
terminal benefits after superannuation, had he been alive – Thus, 
it is not a case where the death of the respondent’s father brought 
about such dire consequence and/or disastrous outcome that the 
respondent and his mother would have to cope with miserable 
effects which, as the respondent urged, could be remedied only by 
offering an appointment on compassionate ground – The scheme 
of 1993 envisages assessment of the suitability of the claimant for 
compassionate appointment – In several decisions it has been held 
that the clauses forming part of the policy/scheme for compassionate 
appointment have to be followed to the letter – In the instant case, 
without th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.