HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11468 of 2024 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vinay Shankar, learned counsel for respondent(s) and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 10.09.2024 & 06.11.2024 by virtue of which the petitioner has been declined the benefit of compassionate appointment. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee of the Bank and after his death in the year 2022, the petitioner applied for appointment, but the same has been rejected with the reason that the financial condition of the petitioner and his family is well off, but neither any documents were sought from the petitioner nor any evidence adduced thereof. He further has drawn attention towards paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the reason which is shown for rejection of the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate ground, whereas, the reasons mentioned in rejection order is altogether different, that the terminal benefits have been paid to the petitioner, therefore, he is well off, thus, submission is that the order impugned does not stand on its own legs. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi – (1978) 1 SCC 405 and has referred paragraph 8 of the abovesaid judgment:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Madhavan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vinay Shankar, Shreyash Agrawal Vidit Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Managing Director Canara Bank Head Office State Karnataka And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the orders impugned dated 10.09.2024 and 06.11.2024 are unsustainable, therefore, those may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the compassionate appointment in the Bank is governed with the Circular No. 296 of 2020 dated 18.04.2020 which is applicable to the petitioner, whereafter, on 01.01.2025, the Bank has introduced the provision of an Appeal, which is apparent that the matter which has been decided prior to nine months, from 01.01.2025, the person against whom the order is passed, may institute an Appeal. He submitted that the option of instituting appeal has been opted by the petitioner and appeal was preferred, which is under consideration. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the vide the order/letter dated 10.09.2024 and 06.11.2024, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. The order reveals the reason, which have been assigned to the effect that the financial condition of the petitioner is satisfactory. This Court has also noticed that the statement in paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the terminal benefit have been given to the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for any consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. The two reasons are altogether different, which clearly shows that the authority while rejecting the claim of WRIA No. 11468 of 2024 2 the petitioner has applied its mind on another ground and now the other ground is being taken for not giving appointment to the petitioner on the compassionate ground. The plea has also been taken by counsel for the respondent-bank that appeal is pending before the bank authorities, but the fact remains that the order impugned herein does not stand on its own legs, as the claim has been rejected on the different pretext than it was stated in paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit. It has further been noticed by this Court in the counter affidavit that the bank has failed to substantiate that what was the material available before the authority concerned while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned dated 10.09.2024 & 06.11.2024 are erroneous, thus, the same are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 3/Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Human Resources Management Section, Circle Office at Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh, in accordance with the law, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. November 25, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 11468 of 2024 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench