Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44294 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22254 of 2020 Petitioner :- Nazeer Ahamad Respondent :- Bank Of Baroda Thru.M.D.And C.E.O. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prahlad Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava,Anand Kumar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 06.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Perusal of said order would indicate that respondents have considered mid-term benefits as have been received by family members of deceased as well as income of other family members and have thereafter indicated that family of petitioner has not been found to be in indigent condition and thus the claim has been rejected. 4. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent bank states that the order impugned is in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and another vs Somvir Singh, 2007 (41) SCC 778 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate appointment framed by the bank provides for making assessment of financial condition of family which is an important criteria for determining eligibility to compassionate appointment. Certain factors are required to be taken into consideration of which a few factors would be family pension, gratuity as well as income of other family members from employment or otherwise. 5. The contention is that once other family members of petitioner have been found to be drawing substantial salary and that certain financial benefits have also been received by the family upon death of father of petitioner and the order impugned has also considered the same as such no error has been committed by the respondents while passing the order impugned and in rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondents could not have considered the salary which was being drawn by other brothers of petitioner and retiral dues as received by the family. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents vide order impugned dated 06.11.2020 on the ground of the family members of the deceased (including brothers of the petitioner) being in receipt of sufficient salary and that the family has received substantial terminal benefits. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somvir Singh (supra) has considered this aspect of the matter. Relevant observations are as below: "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 an important criterion for determining the eligibility to compassionate appointment, the following factors are required to be taken into consideration: a) Family pension b) Gratuity amount received c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to Provident Fund d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund e) Proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments of the deceased employee f) Income for family from other sources g) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any. The Competent Authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The Authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. 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 income of the family from other sources viz. the agricultural land. In our considered opinion the 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 itself is whether the decision making process rejecting the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment is vitiated? 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 does not entitle one to compassionate appointment de hors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be. The income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into consideration according to scheme which the High Court altogether ignored while remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the appellant- Bank. It is not a case where the dependants of the deceased employee are left 'without any means of livelihood' and unable to make both ends meet. 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. As observed by this Court in General Manager (D&PB) and others Vs Kunti Tiwary and anr. [ (2004) 7 SCC 271], the High Court cannot dilute the criteria 'of penury to one of' "not very well-to-do". The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court may amount to varying the existing scheme framed by the appellant-Bank. Such a course is impermissible in law." (emphasis supplied) 9. From perusal of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somvir Singh (supra), it emerges that the bank can very well consider the terminal benefits as have been received by the family members of the deceased as well as income of other family members from employment or otherwise. 10. From perusal of the order impugned it emerges that the respondents have considered the salary which is being drawn by other family members including brothers of petitioner and terminal benefits as have been received by family members and thus have found that family of petitioner cannot be said to be in indigent condition so as to be eligible for compassionate appointment. 11. Thus it is apparent that the order impugned is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somvir Singh (supra). 12. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench