INDIAN BANK & ORS. versus PROMILA & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
INDIAN BANK & ORS.
v.
PROMILA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2798 of 2010)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ. ]
Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Principles
applicable to the cases of – In the appellant-Bank, scheme was
brought into force for compassionate appointment on 04.04.79 –
New Scheme was promulgated on 05.11.85 which in effect continued
the old Scheme – Person appointed as Clerk-cum-Shroff in the Bank
– Died on 15.1.04 – Survived by his wife (respondent no.1 and
three minor children, one of the son being respondent no.2) –
Application made on behalf of respondent no.2, when he was minor,
seeking compassionate employment – Post the said application, new
Scheme was brought into force w.e.f. 27.04.04, in supersession of
the previous Scheme – One of the condition for such Scheme was
that the monthly income of the family (including terminal benefits,
insurance claims, investments, etc. as well as pension and spousal
income) was less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary, net of
taxes, of the deceased employee – Respondents did not apply under
the new Scheme – Also, respondent no.1’s gross salary declaration
only on 17.02.06 crossed the benchmark of 60%, thus they were
informed that even cash compensation was not available to them
and that there could be no question of compassionate appointment
– Respondents sought compassionate appointment under the 2004
Scheme, upon the respondent no.2 attaining age of majority – High
Court granted Rs.2 lakh ex gratia payment, leaving open to the
respondents to make appropriate application regarding any terminal
benefits, if not paid – Held: Compassionate appointment is not an
alternative to the normal course of appointment – There is no
inherent right to seek compassionate appointment – Question of
applicability of any subsequent Scheme really does not apply in
view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Canara Bank – Thus, it
would not be appropriate to examine the case of the respondents in
the context of subsequent Schemes, but only in the context of the
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 408
408
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
Scheme of 4.4.1979, the terms of which continued to be applicable
even as per the new Scheme of 5.11.1985, i.e. the Scheme applicable
to the respondents – There is no provision in this Scheme for any ex
gratia payment – Further, option of compassionate appointment was
available only if the full amount of gratuity was not taken, something
which was done – Thus, the option of compassionate appointment
really was not available to the respondents – Keeping in mind the
basic principles applicable to the cases of compassionate
employment, i.e., succor being provided at the stage of unfortunate
demise, coupled with compassionate employment not being an
alternate method of public employment, it is noticed that the
respondents had the wherewithal at the relevant stage of time, as
per the norms, to deal with the unfortunate situation– It is not for
the Courts to substitute a Scheme or add/subtract from the terms
thereof in judicial review – Court may have sympathy with the
respondents, but sympathy alone cannot give remedy, more so when
the relevant benefits available to the respondents were granted by
the Bank and when respondent no.1, herself was in employment
having monthly income above the benchmark – Impugned order set
aside – Writ petition originally filed by the respondents is dismissed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 The question of applicability of any subsequent
Scheme really does not apply in view of the judgment of Supreme
Court in Canara Bank. Thus, it would not be appropriate to
examine the case of the respondents in the context of subsequent
Schemes, but only in the context of the Scheme of 4.4.1979, the
terms of which continued to be applicable even as per the new
Scheme of 5.11.1985, i.e. the Scheme applicable to the
respondents. There is no provision in this Scheme for any ex
gratia payment. The option of compassionate appointment was
available only if the full amount of gratuity was not taken,
something which was done. Thus, having taken the full amount
of gratuity, the option of compassionate appointment really was
not available to the respondents. Though the subsequent Schemes
were not applicable, even if benefit was sought to be given of
those Schemes, initial non-disclosure and subsequent disclosure
by respondent No.1, of her employment and her emoluments
INDIAN BANK & ORS. v

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