MGB GRAMIN BANK versus CHAKRAWARTI SINGH

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 1 
MGB GRAMIN BANK 
v. 
CHAKRAWARTI SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 6348 of 2013) 
AUGUST 7, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
8 
Compassionate ·appointment - Death of employee of C 
appellant-Bank in harness -
His son applied for 
compassionate appointment - During pendency of the 
application, new Scheme came into force providing that all 
applications pending on the date of the Scheme to be 
considered for grant of ex-gratia paymerit to the family instead 
of compassionate appointment -
CoBmpassionate D 
appointment denied - Challenged - Courts below directing 
the Bank to appoint - Held: Courts below not correct in 
directing the appointment - Mere death of a. Government 
employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim 
compassionate appointment - Such employment cannot be 
E 
claimed as a matter of right as the same is not a vested right 
- Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly 
adhering to the mandatory requirements of Arts. 14 and 16 
of the Constitution - An exception to this rule by providing 
employment on· compassionate grounds has been carved out F 
in order to remove the financial constraints of the bereaved 
family - The ameliorating relief should not be taken as 
opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public 
employment - Courts cannot confer benediction to make 
appointments on sympathetic grounds when the regulation G 
framed in. its respect does not contemplate or cover such 
appointment - Liberty to applicant to apply for consideration 
under the new Scheme. 
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A (1994) 4 SCC 138; A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative 
Societies and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4504: 2004 (7) SCC 112; 
State Bank.of India and Anr. vs. Raj Kumar(2010) 11 SCC 
661 - relied on. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Words and Phrases - 'vested' meaning of - Discussed. 
Bibi Sayeeda vs. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 1936; 
Ku/dip Singh vs. Government, NCT Delhi AIR 2006 SC 2652 
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 335; J. S. 
Yadav vs. State of Uttar 
Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 570: 2011 (5) S~R 460 - referred to. 
Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) p. 1563 ; Black's Law 
Dictionary (6thEdition) p. 1397, Webster's Comprehensive 
Dictionary (lnternationalEdition) p. 1397- referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1994) 4 sec 138 
referred to 
Para 6 
2004 (7) sec 112 
relied on 
Para a 
AIR 1996 SC 516 
referred to 
Para 11 
2011 (5 ) SCR 460 
referred to 
Para 11 
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 335 referred to 
Para 11 
c201 O) 11 sec 661 
relied on 
Para 12 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6348 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2010 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil 
G Special Appeal (Writ) No. 798 of 2009. 
H 
Anil Kumar Sangal, Siddharth Sangal for the Appellant. 
Vasudevan Raghavan for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
MGB GRAMIN BANK v. CHAKRAWARTI SINGH 
3 
ORDER 
A 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil 
B 
Special Appeal (Writ)No.798 of 2009 upholding the judgment 
and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2009 passed 
in Writ Petition No. 7869 of 2008 by which the respondent had 
been directed to be appointed under a scheme for 
compassionate appointment. 
C 
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are 
fu~ 
0 
A. Father of the respondent who was working as a Class 
Ill employee with the appellant Bank died on 19.4.2006 while 
D 
in harness. The respondent applied for compassionate 
appointment on 12.5.2006. 
B. During the pendency of the application filed by the 
respondent, a new scheme dated 12.6.2006 came into force 
E 
with effect from 6.10.2006. Clause 14 thereof provides that all 
applications pending on the date of commencement of the 
scheme shall be considered for grant of ex-gratia payment to 
the family instead of compassionate appointment. 
C. As the appointment on compassionate ground was 
F 
denied to the respondent, he preferred the writ petition before 
the High Court and the learned Single Judge took the view that 
as the cause of action had arisen prior to the commencement 
of the new scheme, therefore, the case was to be considered 
as per the then existing scheme i.e. the 1983 Scheme which 
G 
provided for compassiona
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.