CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus NITIN

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 03-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
v.
NITIN
(Civil Appeal No. 5111 of 2022)
AUGUST 03, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Respondent-writ
petitioner’s father who was working in appellant-Bank applied for
voluntary premature retirement on the ground of medical
incapacitation – Appellant permitted the same and he was relived
from duty w.e.f. 26.06.2015 – Respondent applied for compassionate
appointment in place of his father in terms of compassionate
appointment scheme of the appellant – In the application, respondent
supressed the fact that he was employed in a private Bank – The
Committee constituted by appellant-Bank under the scheme rejected
the respondent’s application on the ground that family of retired
employee was not indigent as required under the scheme – High
Court held that family was indigent or not could not be a ground
for refusing compassionate appointment and directed the appellant
to consider the case of respondent for compassionate appointment
– On appeal, held: There is financial criteria of eligibility for
compassionate appointment under the compassionate Appointment
Scheme of the Appellant bank and such Rules have to be construed
strictly as compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of
equity – The application and the writ petition of Respondent was
liable to be rejected alone on the ground of suppression of material
facts – The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. It is well settled that compassionate appointment
is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the
dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee
who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide
over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death
of the breadwinner. [Para 20][1083-C]
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1076
1076
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
2. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for
compassionate appointment under the Compassionate
Appointment Scheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria
for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful
rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota
reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up
excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute
financial distress. [Para 21][1083-E]
3. As held by this court in State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661, the claim for compassionate
appointment is traceable only to the Scheme framed by the
employer for such employment, and there is no right whatsoever
outside such scheme. There could be no automatic appointment
merely on application. The respondent-writ petitioner did not
have any special claim or special right to employment as
dependent family member of the retired employee. [Para 22][1083-
F-G]
4. The High Court completely overlooked the fact that the
respondent had suppressed his appointment with ICICI Bank in
his application for compassionate appointment. The writ petition
was liable to be rejected on that ground alone. [Para 23][1083-H;
1084-A]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in
(1994) 4 SCC 138 : [1994] 3 SCR 893; Canara Bank
& Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 : [2015]
9  SCR 724; Balbir Kuar & Anr. v. Steel Authority of
India Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 493 : [2000] 3 SCR
1053; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994)
4 SCC 138 : [1994] 3 SCR 893; Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale
v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary &
Ors. (2020) 19 SCC 426; State Bank of India v. Raj
Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 :  2010 (3) SCALE 635 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1994] 3 SCR 893
referred to
Para 5
[2015] 9 SCR 724
referred to
Para 15
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. NITIN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
[2000] 3 SCR 1053
referred to
Para 15
[1994] 3 SCR 893
referred to
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5111 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 12352 of
2018.
Debal Kumar Banerji, Sr. Adv., Divyanshu Sahay, Ms. Shradha
Narayan, Akshay Samay, Mithu Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Pragyan Pradeep Sharma, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Ranjeet Kumar
Singh, Kartikay Dutia, Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Ms. Arti Prasad, Abhishek
Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE,

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