2025:UHC:6645-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No.503 of 2018 30th July, 2025 Regional Manager, Central Bank of India & Ors. ---Appellants Versus Kamal Singh Bhandari & Anr. ---Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Monika Pant and Ms. Deveshi, Advocates for the appellants Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1 No representation for respondent no.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. This intra-court appeal is filed by Central Bank of India challenging judgment dated 07.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1346 of 2008. By the said judgment, rejection of claim of writ petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) for compassionate appointment was set aside and the authorities were directed to decide his case for appointment on compassionate basis, without insisting on an income ceiling. 1 2025:UHC:6645-DB 2. The claim of respondent no.1 was rejected on the ground that dependents of the deceased employee had received ₹ 3,94,000/- as terminal benefits, besides family pension amounting to ₹ 3,884/- per month. 3. Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that out of the terminal benefits paid to the family, a sum of ₹ 47,900/- was deducted towards house loan, which deceased employee had taken during his lifetime. 4. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it has to be granted by the employer as per the policy applicable; as per policy applicable in Central Bank of India, the financial resources which family of an employee would receive after his death, has to be taken into account, which includes the amount which the family would get as family pension and other terminal dues. He submits that claim of respondent no.1 for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the family has sufficient financial resources available after death of the employee and learned Single Judge erred in directing the authorities to consider his case for appointment 2 2025:UHC:6645-DB without insisting on income ceiling. 5. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. Nitin reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1873. Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee. 21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress. 22. As held by this court in State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 cited by Mr. Debal Kumar Banerji, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Bank, the claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the Scheme framed by the employer for 3 2025:UHC:6645-DB such employment, and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. There could be no automatic appointment merely on application. The respondent-writ petitioner did not have any special claim or special right to employment as dependent family member of the retired employee.” 6. We find substance in the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel. The claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the prevalent policy. Since in the policy of Central Bank of India, there is an income ceiling prescribed, therefore, the direction to ignore the income ceiling, does not appear to be proper. The claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the policy and there cannot be any direction to consider it dehors the policy. 7. In such view of the matter, while upholding the direction to take decision on respondent’s claim, we interfere with that part whereby authorities were directed to consider it by ignoring income ceiling. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with direction to the Competent Authority in Central Bank of India to reconsider case of respondent no.1, as per law. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 30.07.2025 30.07.2025 Rajni 4 RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48 448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f 17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222 B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F53 0616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.08.04 13:10:13 +05'30'