- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 205860 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHANKAR S/O (LATE) BASAVARAJ BADGI AGE: 29 YRS, OCC: NIL, NO.157, SHANTI NAGAR, NEAR HAKIM CHOWK, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GENERAL MANAGER (HR) H R DEPARTMENT, UNION BANK OF INDIA, (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), MANPOWER PLANNING AND RECRUITMENT DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, MUMBAI-400021. 2. CHIEF MANAGER (HRMD) REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK OF INDIA, (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), 1049/B-2, TILAKWADI, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REJECTION ORDER NO. HR:MPRD:F-1574:216:2016 DATED 02.04.2016 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 20.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CAV ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.HR:MPRD:F-1574:216:2016 dated 02.04.2016 passed by the Assistant General Manager (HR) (stated as General Manager (HR) in the cause title of the petition) of the respondent No.1 - Bank rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider his application for appointment under the scheme for Employment of Dependents of Employee Dying while in Service providing appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The petitioner contends that his father was employed as a Cashier with the respondents and died during - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 service on 28.05.2015. The petitioner contends that he was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore, as per the extant policy of the respondents, filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was called upon by the respondents to furnish particulars and the same was furnished to the respondents on 13.10.2015. The Assistant General Manager (HR) of the respondent No.1 - Bank in terms of a communication dated 02.04.2016 informed the petitioner that his request for appointment on compassionate grounds was not considered favourably by the Bank in view of the income of the family of the petitioner from all sources. The petitioner then pursued his claim by submitting representations. The Assistant General Manager (HR) of the respondent No.1 - Bank again on 16.06.2016 and 15.02.2017 reiterated his earlier stand and rejected the request of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the scheme formulated by the respondents providing appointment - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 on compassionate grounds is available to a dependent family member of an employee appointed on regular basis against permanent vacancy, if he dies before reaching the age of 55 years. He contends that the revised scheme is intended to assist the family to tide over the financial stringency and indigency and is applicable with effect from 05.08.2014 for the cases where death on medical grounds occur on or after 05.08.2014. He contends that appointment on compassionate basis is given only in clerical and sub-staff cadre. He contends that the respondents while rejecting the application of the petitioner have relied upon the terminal benefits that the father of the petitioner was entitled to. He contends that though the family possessed 40.6 acres of dry land in Kakhandanki village in Vijayapura Taluk, a suit for partition was filed in O.S.No.211/2015 and the same was decreed in part declaring that the aunts of petitioner were entitled to 1/3rd share in the aforesaid property. As a result, he submits that the family of the petitioner was entitled to 1/3rd share out of 40.26 acres of land and since there were four members in the family of the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to about 4 acres of dry land which is not sufficient to meet the needs and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 necessities. He further contends that the terminal benefit due to the death of the father of the petitioner is not in the hands of the petitioner alone but all the other three members are entitled to an equal share. He contends that even if the terminal benefits is taken into account, the petitioner would hardly get a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- which would not be sufficient to meet the day to day needs and necessities. This apart, he contends that one of the sisters of the petitioner was married off after the death of the father of the petitioner and that the family had incurred loan and expenses for the marriage which also has to be repaid. Therefore he contends that whatever terminal benefits that were received has now been used up by the family and the petitioner is absolutely destitute and has no means of livelihood. He contends that as per the scheme formulated by the respondents providing appointment on compassionate grounds, Clause 17(iii) of the scheme states that while considering an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, it should not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. He therefore contends that just because the family of the petitioner had - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 received the terminal benefits that itself would not be a disqualification for the petitioner to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. He submits that the scheme is applicable to all employees of the bank and therefore the petitioner is entitled to claim appointment on compassionate basis. 5. Per contra, the respondents have filed a detailed statement of objections contending that the concept of compassionate appointment is evolved to help the family in distress due to the loss of a bread earner. They contend that the scheme is therefore formulated in such a way that discretion is vested in the employer to assess the financial stringency faced by the family and the need to provide appointment on compassionate basis so as to help the family tide over the crisis. It is contended that the petitioner has been carrying on agricultural activities in the family held lands and therefore, the petitioner is not completely destitute and is not facing any financial stringency so as to provide him appointment on compassionate basis. It is also contended that the petitioner is in receipt of a substantial sum of money as terminal benefits and the mother of the petitioner is also - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 drawing pension of more than Rs.16,000/- and the family of the petitioner is drawing income from various investments amounting to a sum of Rs.23,115/-. Thus it is contended that the family is not facing any stringency and the respondents have carefully considered these aspects and have held that the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate basis. 6. In addition, it is contended that the sister of the petitioner is already working in Syndicate Bank while the other sister is already married off and is living with her husband. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner does not have the responsibility of looking after his mother or his sisters and whatever money in the form of terminal benefits lying in his hands and the land that he owns are just enough for the sustenance of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ram Chandra Ambekar [(1994) 2 SCC 718]. It is contended that the respondents are bound to assess various factors before coming to the conclusion that the family is destitute or not and in the present case, the respondents have taken due care and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 caution in holding that the petitioner’s family is not destitute and that petitioner is not in need of any aid in the form of providing appointment on compassionate grounds. In this regard, they relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Ashwini kumar Taneja [(2004) 7 SCC 265] and General Manager (DNPB) and others vs. Kunti Tiwari and another [(2004) 7 SCC 271] and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [(2008) 11 SCC 384] and Union of India and Anr. v. Shashank Goswami and Anr. [AIR 2012 SC 2294]. They also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 3 SCR 893] to contend that the appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved to the general rule for appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-D to the writ petition and contended that the terminal benefits was a sum of Rs.30,39,234/- and a sum of Rs.5,25,261/- was the investment made by the father of the petitioner from which the petitioner was earning income of Rs.23,115/-. He therefore contended - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 that after deducting the loan amounts availed by the father of the petitioner, the net terminal benefits, which was lying in the hands of the petitioner and his family members was Rs.32,63,291/- and the mother of the petitioner was drawing pension of Rs.16,646/-. He further contended that the petitioner himself declared that the family owned a house constructed on a site measuring 30' x 40' at Belgaum and owned 40.26 acres of dry land in Bijapur. He, therefore contends that the family is not destitute and therefore the respondents have taken into consideration the above facts and has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. He referred to the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment more particularly Clause 5.1 which is extracted below :- "5. ELIGIBILITY 5.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. To access the financial condition the income of the family from all sources including the family pension, terminal benefits, proceeds of insurance policies & other investments etc. and the employment of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 family members, size of the family & liabilities, if any will be taken into consideration." 9. He also referred to Clause 17(iii) of the said Scheme which states as follows :- "17. General xxx iii) An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc. Hence, compassionate appointment be offered by the Bank only in the case where the Bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family in such that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis.” 10. He therefore contended that the appointment on compassionate basis would be offered by the respondent No.1 - - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 bank only in a case when the bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that, but for the provision of an employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and as rightly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (referred supra) appointment on compassionate grounds is a departure from the regular course of recruitment and is designed to help the family of an employee to tide over a sudden crisis caused due to the death of a bread earner in the family. Therefore, it is for the employer to decide the terms and conditions of appointing a person on compassionate basis. In the case on hand, the respondents have evolved a scheme for appointment on compassionate basis. The respondents have also reserved the right to assess the financial condition of the family before holding that the family is destitute and deserves immediate financial assistance for relief. Under the scheme, the employer - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 is entitled to take into account the income of the family from all sources including family pension, terminal benefits, proceeds of insurance policies and other investments etc., size of the family and liabilities etc. The scheme also casts the burden on the person to be appointed on compassionate grounds to undertake that he will maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased employee and in case it is proved that the family members were being neglected or not maintained properly, his or her appointment will be terminated. Therefore, the scheme as formulated by the respondent-Bank is to ensure that the family of the deceased employee is taken care of by providing an appointment to a member of the family. Such appointments are given only in the clerical and sub-staff cadre. The scheme also envisages payment of exgratia under Clause 18, which reads as follows : "18. EXGRATIA IN LIEU OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT The bank has both the options i.e. Compassionate Appointment or payment of lump sum Ex-gratia amount. However, the option of Compassionate Appointment will be used only when the other conditions of compassionate appointment are met. The Staff Circular No.5425 dated 08.09.2007 will - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 be applicable for payment of lump-sum Ex-gratia, if the dependants are otherwise eligible for the same." 13. A perusal of the Scheme shows that the scheme is open to the dependants of all permanent employees of the bank. When a permanent employee dies, the bank has two options, one is either to provide appointment on compassionate basis based on the financial stringency of the family or to pay an ex gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is not known whether the respondents have paid any ex gratia to the family of the petitioner. 14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the petitioner and his family members were in receipt of net terminal benefits of a sum of Rs.32,63,291/-. The mother of the petitioner was drawing family pension of Rs.16,646/- while the family of the petitioners was earning a monthly income of Rs.23,115/- from investments made by the deceased. However, this alone cannot be the basis to arrive at the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds, as the benefit of scheme is available to the dependants of all employees of the respondent - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 No.1 - Bank and not only to Group-C or Group-D posts. Invariably, the dependants of a deceased employee of a bank are entitled to the death benefits which is not a gratis given by the employer, but are the legitimate earnings of the deceased employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Canara Bank and Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar [(2015) 7 SCC 412] has rejected a similar ground raised by a bank to deny appointment on compassionate grounds. Though this judgment is referred to a larger Bench, the same is not disturbed till date. 15. However, the family of the petitioner own a house at Belgaum and a large area of 40 Acres 26 guntas of agricultural land at Kakhandaki village in Vijayapura Taluk. It appears that the aunts of the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S No.211/2015 for partition, which was decreed in part in terms of the judgement and decree dated 05.08.2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura, and the same was confirmed by the Principal District Judge, Vijayapura, in R.A. No.118/2017 on 19.06.2019. Even if it is assumed that the aunts of the petitioner are entitled for a share in the properties of the family, still the family would be left with a large holding which is sufficient enough for eking out a decent livelihood. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1817 WP No. 205860 of 2019 The petitioner and his family members were in receipt of nearly Rs.32,63,291/- being the net terminal benefits of the deceased. The mother of petitioner was and is drawing family pension of Rs.16,646/- from the Bank and earning monthly income of Rs.23,115/- from the investments made by the deceased. The two sisters of the petitioner are married off, while his mother has a decent pension sufficient enough for her living. Therefore, the family is not in dire financial straits requiring the respondent-Bank to provide an appointment to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, there is no error committed by the Assistant General Manager (HR) of the respondent No.1 - Bank in not entertaining the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE SN-para Nos.1 to 14 sma-from para No.15 till the end List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1