STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus JASPAL KAUR

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 01-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

--..l 
( 
-~-
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
JASPALKAUR 
FEBRUARY I, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Appointment on compassionate ground-Claim for-Held, unless the 
financial condition of dependents of deceased employee is entirely penury, C 
such appointments cannot be made-Fact finding authority on basis of 
financial details having arrived at the conclusion that financial condition 
of family was not penurious and the family was earning sufficient income to 
maintain themselves, High Court erred in entertaining and allowing the 
claim by applying the scheme formulated much after the application for D 
compassionate appointment was made-Constitution of India-Article 226. 
Respondent's husband, who was working as Record Assistant with the 
appellant-Bank, died in harness. The respondent applied on 5.2.2000 for 
compassionate appointment which the Bank declined. On a direction from 
the High Court to reconsider her case, the competent authority again declined E 
her request by order dated 3.4.2004. The respondent challenged the said 
order before the High Court, which allowed her writ petition by its order dated 
20.9.2005. 
In the present appeal it was, inter a/ia, contended for the appellant-Bank 
that the High Court failed to consider that the respondent could be considered F 
for compassionate appointment under the Scheme framed by the Bank in the 
year 1996 which was in existence at the relevant time, and the provisions of 
the said scheme applied only in cases where the deceased had left the family 
in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in the instant case, as 
there did not exist such circumstances, a writ of mandamus could not be issued G 
de hors the scheme. Counsel for the respondent relying upon para 8 of the 
Scheme formulated by the Bank and enforced w.e.f. 4.8.2005, contended that 
-f_ 
the Bank in the said scheme laid down criteria for determining penury, i.e, if 
the income of the family of deceased employee/dependents was reduced to less 
101 
H 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A than 60% of the salary which was drawn by the deceased at the time of his 
death. It was submitted that even if assuming the income as Rs.5855/- the 
same being less than 40% of the salary last drawn by the deceased, the 
Scheme dated 4.8.2005 was not complied with by the Bank while considering 
her case. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. A major criterion while appointing a person on 
compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the 
deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, 
C such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition 
of respondent's family is not one of destitution, the appellants have already 
paid the terminal benefits which would earn i<.s.3800/- p.m. as notional interest; 
besides, a sum of Rs.2055/- p.m. was being paid towards family pension and 
monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme. The competent fact 
finding authority on the basis of these financial details had arrived at the 
D conclusion that the financial condition of the family is not penurious and that 
the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence appointment 
on compassionate ground was not granted to the respondent. There is no 
necessity to interfere with this order of the competent authority on the fact 
situation of this case. (Para 22] (108-E-H( 
E 
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994] 4 SCC 138 
and General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary & Anr., (2004] 7 SCC 
271, relied on 
L.J.C. of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) & Anr., (1994] 2 
SCC 718 and Bank of India & Anr. v. Dega/a Suranarayana, (1999] 5 SCC 
F 7 62, cited. 
G 
1.2. The competent authority of the bank had to consider the case of the 
respondent as per the parameters laid down in the Scheme. Accordingly, while 
deciding on the financial condition of the respondent the relevant factors were 
taken into consideration by the competent authority and based on these details 
appointment was declined to the respondent on compassionate ground. (Para 
23] (108-H; A-DJ 
1.J. The specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations 
like the competent authority iR this case are better equipped to decide the 
H cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation 
_, 
-~ 
I 
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. JASPAL KAUR [LAKSHMANAN, J

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