UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M.T. LATHEESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 696 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
M.T. LATHEESH 
AUGUST 18, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHA TTERJEE,JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment-On compassionate ground-Formulation 
of Scheme by Bank for appointment on compassionate ground--Scheme 
C providing system for computation of financial condition of family for 
determining the entitlement-Claim for such appointment-Declined by 
Competent Authority-Such appointment allowed by Single Judge and 
Division Bench of High Court-On appeal. held: Claimant was not entitled 
to appointment on compassionate ground in view of the financial condition 
of the family-Such appointment being an exception to the general rule 
D should be exercised only in warranting situations--// cannot be claimed as 
a matter of right. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Right to equa/ity-
Applicability--Scope of-Held: Article 14 cannot be extended to legalize 
E illegal orders. 
Appellant-Bank formulated a scheme for employment on compassionate 
grounds in terms of the judgment of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. 
State of Haryana and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138. The Scheme provided for 
system for computation of the financial condition of the concerned family for 
F determining the entitlement. Income from all sources including the pension, 
was taken into consideration. The Scheme was subsequently amended 
providing cash compensation in some of the deserving cases, where 
compassionate employment was not feasible. The respondent, after death of 
his father, applied for employment on compassionate ground which was 
declined by the Competent Authority of the Bank. Respondent filed a Writ 
G Petition in High Court challenging the rejection. Single Judge of the High 
Court allowed the Petition. Writ Appeal of the Bank was dismissed by Division 
Bench of High Court on the ground that the amount of terminal benefits of 
the respondent was paltry; and that the basic pension amount was only Rs. 
3,232/-. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
696 
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. M.T. LATHEESH 
697 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the present case, by declining the application submitted by 
the respondent after th~ proper consideration of the same in the light of the 
relevant parameters, the appellant-Bank cannot be said to have acted in an 
arbitrary manner regardless of the constitutional principles. [714-G-H) 
2. The specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations, like 
the competent authority in this case, are better equipped to decide the cases 
on facts of the case; and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of 
A 
B 
the full fact should not be disturbed. Single Judge and the Division Bench of 
High Court by directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the 
appointing and selecting authorities; the Bank had considered the application C 
of the respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by it for such 
appointment. Even though the Bank found the respondent ineligible for 
appointment to its service, the High Court has found him eligible and has 
ordered his appointment. This is against the law laid down by this Court. The 
principles regarding compassionate appointment that compassionate D 
appointment being an exception to the general rule, the discretion has to be 
exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in 
granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the 
family. [714-H; 715-A-C) 
3. When an employee dies, any one of the dependent, mentioned in clause E 
2 (c) of the appointment on compassionate ground scheme formulated by the 
Bank, can forward an application as per the said scheme. Consequently, the 
dependent does not automatically become entitled to get employment. The right 
that accrues on the applicant is a right to get preferential treatment against 
the general principle of appointment, subject to the discretion of the Bank. 
Further the possession of relevant qualification does not create any vested F 
right on the applicant to get appointed to a post specified by the scheme. 
[706-B-DI 
Umesh Kumar Nagpalv. State of Haryana and Ors., [1994) 4 SCC 138; 
General Manager (D&PB) and Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary and Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 
271 and Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 G 
sec 265, relied on. 
Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India and Ors., [2000) 6 SCC 493, 
distinguished. 
4. The Division Bench of High Court has failed to notice the fact that H 
698 
SUPREM

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