STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SOMVIR SINGH

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 13-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR . 
A 
.,. 
··~ 
\'. 
SOMVIR SINGH 
FEBRUARY 13, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
·-
Service Luw-Compassionate appointment-Entitlement-Claim for 
compassionate appointment-Denied by competent authority after 
ascertaining the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee c 
as per the mandate of the Scheme for such appointment-High Court remanded 
the case to Bank for reconsideration-On appeal, held: Financial condition 
(If the family was rightly assessed by the Bank as per the mandate of the 
Scheme-High Court not justified to undertake the exercise to decide the 
adequacy of the income. 
D 
Respondent's mother applied for appointment of the respondent on 
., 
compassionate ground, after death of her husband (an employee of appellant-
Bank). The competent authority, after considering the financial condition of 
!· 
the family found that family of the deceased employee had not been left in 
penury or without any means of livelihood and hence rejected the request for 
compassionate appointment. On a Writ Petition filed, High Court held that E 
the financial condition as determined by the competent authority could not be 
termed as 'to take out the family from penury', and directed the appellant-
Bank to reconsider the claim of compassionate of appointment. Hence the 
present appeal. 
~ { 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The appellant-Bank is required to consider the request for 
compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it 
and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make 
compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. The claim for compassionate G 
appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive 
~ 
instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of provi'.!ing 
l'. 
employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature 
to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, 1f any, 
509 
H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may 
be. [Para 10) [514-C; DJ 
,.,._ 
1.2. The scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased employee 
on compassionate grounds framed by the appellant-Bank inter alia provides 
that in making assessment of the financial condition of the family which is 
B an important criterion for determining the eligibility to compassionate 
appointment, after taking certain factors into consideration. [Para 11) 
[514-.EJ 
1.3. The Authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal 
benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the 
C family pension paid by the bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding 
as to whether the family of the deceased employee had been left in penury or 
without any means oflivelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant-Bank in 
fact mandates the Authority to take those factors into consideration. The 
Authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the 
D income of the family from other sources viz. the agricultural land. [Para 12] 
[515-A-BJ 
1.4. High Court itself could not have undertaken any exercise to decide 
as to what would be the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the 
family for its survival and whether it had been left in penury or without any 
means of livelihood. The only question the High Court could have adverted 
E itself is. whether the decision making process rejecting the claim of the 
respondent for compassionate appointment is vitiated or whether the order is 
not in conformity with the scheme framed by the appellant-Bank. It is not 
even urged that the order passed by the Competent Authority is not in 
accordance with the scheme. It is well settled that the hardship of the dependant 
F does not entitlr one to compassionate appointment de hors the scheme or the 
statutory provisions as the case may be. The High Court ought not to have 
disturbed the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant-Bank that 
the respondent was not living hand to mouth. [Para 13) (515-C-F) 
General Manager (D &PB) and Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary and Anr., [2004] 7 
G sec 211, retied on. 
2. Article 16(1) of the Constitution oflndia guarantees to all its citizens 
equality of opportunity in matters relating to emp.Ioyment or appointment to 
any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against 
discrimination in r

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