GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus ANJU JAIN

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 25-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 576 
A 
GENERAL. MANAGER, 
'4' 
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
ANJU JAIN 
(Civil Appeal No. 5224 of 2008) 
B 
AUGUST 25, 2008 
' 
rc~K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
x 
Service Law - Appointment on compassionate ground 
c - Denial of - On the ground that the deceased employee, 
~ 
during his service tenure, was punished for misconduct -
Held: Appointment rightly denied -
Dependants of the 
deceased employee cannot claim right to such appointment, 
if the employee, during his career was punished for illegalities 
D and misconduct committed -
Such appointment is not a 
right - It is an- exception to the general rule of equality -
I 
Even under the policy for compassionate appointment in 
').-
force at the relevant time claim was rightly declined -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. 
E 
Writ -
Writ of mandamus - · Issuance -
Scope of -
Held: Writ of mandamus can be issued only directing to 
tonsider the case for appointment/promotion -
But no 
direction can be given to appoint/promote. 
F 
Husband of the responde_nt was working with the 
appellant-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated 
against him and the charges leveled against him were 
-r- ... 
' 
proved and he was consequently punished. Thereafter, 
while in employment, he died. Respondent applied under 
policy of giving employment on compassionate ground 
G to the dependents of a deceased employee. Competent 
authority denied such appointment in view of the 
~ 
punishment imposed on the deceased employee. 
.. 
Representation against the same was also rejected. 
Respondent filed a writ petition. Single Judge of High 
H 
576 
GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA 
577 
& ORS. v. ANJU JAIN 
~ Court allowed the petition holding that the widow of the A 
deceased employee was entitled to the benefit of 
compassionate appointment and such right could not 
have been taken away on the ground of misconduct on 
the part of her deceased husband. Single Judge issued 
direction to appoint the respondent. Division Bench of B 
I 
High Court confirmed the order. Hence the present 
)( 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Single Judge as well as the Division c 
Bench were not right in observing that since the 
deceased employee was punished, the matter ended 
there and the said punishment would be of no 
consequence so far as appointment of his dependent 
on compassionate ground of the deceased employee D 
was concerned. [Para 36) [589-H, 590-A] 
-.-( 
1.2 If disciplinary proceedings have been initiated 
__., 
against an employee and the charges leveled against 
such employee are proved and he is punished, it is 
indeed a relevant consideration for not extending the E 
benefit to dependent of such employee on the ground 
that he was punished. It cannot be said that it is a case 
of double jeopardy or a dual ·punishment. Compassionate 
appointment is really a concession in favour of 
dependents of deceased employee. If during his career, 
F 
-----,..--~ 
he had committed illegalities and the misconduct is 
proved and he is punished, obviously his dependents 
cannot claim right to the employment. High Court was 
wrong in observing that such an action would be violative 
of principles of natural justice.[Para 30) [588-C-E] 
G 
. 
-4 
1.3 Appointment on compassionate ground is never 
considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment 
is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed 
under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, 
when any appointment is to be made in Government or H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] _12 S.C.R. 
A 
semi~Government or in public office, cases of all eligible 
~ 
candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate 
of Article 14. Normally, therefore, State or its instrumentality 
making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore 
such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain 
B circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground 
of dependents of deceased employee is considered 
I 
inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee 
y 
may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to 
save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis 
c occurring due to death of sole bread earner. It is thus an 
exception to the general rule of equality and not another 
independent and parallel source of employment. [Para 
29] [587-F-H, 588-A B] 
1.4 Even under the policy in force at the relevant 
D time, the appellant Bank was wholly right and fully 
justified in declin

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