2025:JHHC:31506 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6377 of 2018 Santosh Kumar, Aged about 27 years, son of Late Siyaram Shah @ Siyaram Prasad Sah, Resident of Village Kanhwara, P.O. Haripur Garbanna, P.S. & Dist- Madhupur, Jharkhand. ...Petitioner. Versus 1. The Allahabad Bank, Personnel Administration Department, Head Office: 2, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O & P.S Hare Street, Kolkata- 700001 (West Bengal) 2. The General Manager (HR), Allahabad Bank, Personnel Administration Department, officiating at Head Office, 2, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O & P.S Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (West Bengal) 3. The Deputy General Manager (HR), Allahabad Bank, Personnel Administration Department, officiating at Head Office, 2, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O & P.S Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (West Bengal) 4. The Assistant General Manager (HR), Allahabad Bank. Personnel Administration Department, officiating at Head Office, 2, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O & PS Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (West Bengal); 5. The Zonal Manager, Allahabad Bank, Deoghar Zonal Office, 498, Srikant Road, Belabagan, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi. 6. The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank Saptar branch, Village & P.O. Saptar, P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar. ...Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate -- 08/06.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.11.2015 issued by 4th Respondent, whereby the request of the petitioner’s mother Krishna Devi (now deceased) who had proposed the name of this petitioner for compassionate appointment after her husband’s death who was working as Head 2025:JHHC:31506 2 Cashier at Saptar Branch and died in harness on 05.08.2014; was rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for mandamus upon the Respondent-Bank to give compassionate appointment to him. 3. From the record, it appears that subsequent to death of Late Siyaram Sah having P.F. No. 18659, working as Ex-Head Cashier, Saptar Branch/Office on 05.08.2014, mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Krishna Devi had sponsored the candidature of the Petitioner for appointment in the Bank's service on compassionate grounds in terms of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Allahabad Bank in vogue, which has been lastly circularized by the Bank vide instruction Circular No. 13846/PA/2015-16/26 dated 03.08.2015. In terms of Clause 12.3 of the Scheme the matter was examined by the Committee of Executive. The said Committee carefully went through and deliberated at length, on the proposal for appointment of Petitioner on compassionate grounds. The cardinal issue which was to be decided by the said committee was whether the family of the deceased employee was indigent or was facing financial destitution in order to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of compassionate ground. 4. To decide the penurious condition and to maintain uniformity, a policy decision dated 27.07.2015 has been formulated by the bank according to which to ascertain penury of the dependent family, 60% of the gross salary (net of taxes) last drawn by the deceased employee may be taken as yardstick. Only where the income falls short of 60%, cases for compassionate appointment are to be recommended. 2025:JHHC:31506 3 5. Accordingly, the said committee assessed family income (after death of late Siyaram Sah on 05.08.2014) being Rs. 27,981.57 as compared to the emoluments last drawn by late Siyaram Sah i.e. Rs. 40,054.60 i.e. the calculation of the emoluments last drawn by Lt. Siyaram Sah vi-a-vis monthly family income notionally computed subsequent to his death. The said Committee thereafter decided to grant personal hearing to the petitioner for better appreciation of facts of the case, as per provisions of the Scheme. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 05.09.2015 at Head Office and upon hearing, it was observed that no extenuating factors emerged to strengthen the request or for favourable consideration of the request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the proposal may not be considered favourably and the same may be placed before the Competent Authority i.e. Chairman & Managing Director for taking a view in the matter. 6. The matter was the placed before the Chairman & Managing Director, along with the recommendation of the Committee, who considered and approved the recommendation of the Committee declining the request for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though his father who was an ex-employee of the Respondent- Bank died in harness on 05.08.2014 and at that time the scheme which was in operation was as per circular dated 03.12.2014, wherein it has been indicated that the dependent should be granted compassionate appointment and since his father died on 05.08.2014, therefore, the 2025:JHHC:31506 4 case of this petitioner should have been governed and considered in view of the scheme of 03.12.2014; however, the Respondent-Bank has erroneously considered the subsequent scheme which came into effect from 3rd August, 2015. Learned counsel has argued that it is a settled proposition of law that any benefit will be governed by the scheme effective at that time but not any subsequent scheme. He reiterated that the petitioner’s father died on 05.08.2014 and at that time the scheme for giving compassionate appointment was of 03.12.2014 and not the subsequent scheme of August, 2015; as such, the Respondent-Bank is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank opposed the prayer of this petitioner and draws attention of this Court towards the subsequent scheme of August, 2015, wherein there were some Clauses which incorporated the claim of compassionate appointment. He further submits that since there was hue and cry among several juniors and there was also pressure upon the Bank; as such, this new scheme came into effect from 03.08.2015. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the rival submission, in order to adjudicate the lis involved in this writ application, it is necessary to go through the circular of 03.08.2015 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). For brevity, the same is extracted hereunder: “Attention is drawn to our Instruction Circular No.13445/PA/2014-15/40 dated 03.12.2014 introducing the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Allahabad Bank, which is applicable from 5th August, 2014 and governs cases of employees (1) dying while in service on or after 05.08.2014 or (ii) retiring prematurely on medical ground after observing necessary formalities 2025:JHHC:31506 5 as per Rule on account of incapacitation for future work before reaching the age of 55 years on or after 05.08.2014 or (iii) becoming „missing on or after 05.08.2014 with at least two years of remaining service. The term 'employee' in this case is as per definition contained in the said Scheme. It is now notified for information of all concerned, that Government of India, in a subsequent advice, as conveyed by IBA, permitted all Public Sector Banks to have both the options in the Scheme, i.e, compassionate appointment or payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount, either of which can be used only when other conditions of compassionate appointment are met. Accordingly, the provision for payment of one time lump sum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment has been incorporated in the said Scheme for compassionate Appointment by insertion of a new cause (Clause No.17) setting out the detailed terms and conditions there for, as per final approval accorded by the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 08.05.2015.” 10. After going through the aforesaid circular, it is clear that the scheme of 3rd December, 2014 has introduced the rules of compassionate appointment in the Respondent-Bank which was applicable from 5th August, 2014 and there was some clarification in the said scheme which is mentioned thereunder: From the aforesaid circular it also appears that since the petitioner died on 05.08.2014 and the subsequent scheme which is applicable from 05.08.2014 itself will be applicable in the case of the petitioner, whereby certain Clauses were introduced. 11. After going through Annexure-A, it further transpires that Clause 12 indicates the procedure to be adopted in case of giving employment. It is also evident from the record that this issue was deliberated once again and a decision was taken at the highest level in the Respondent-Bank, wherein at para-4 it was stated as under: “Department's observation: With a view to maintain uniformity and transparency in assessing the financial 2025:JHHC:31506 6 condition of any family on the basis of the parameters set out in the Scheme which may enable the Competent Authority to make a balanced and objective assessment of each proposal, certain yardsticks may be evolved and accordingly, it is proposed as under: 4.1 To ascertain the penury of the dependent family, 60% of the gross salary (net of taxes) last drawn by the deceased employee may be taken as the yardstick such amount may, by and large, be considered sufficient for decent living of the family left behind by him. The said 60% of the gross salary (net of taxes) of the deceased, employee may be compared with the aggregate monthly family income comprising family pension, if any, income derived from the net assets (i.e, assets minus liabilities) including the various benefits received under the welfare schemes as also Income derived from other assets/sources left by the deceased employee, if any, at Bank's highest rate of Interest, at staff rate, at the given time. 4.2 In the above process, where it is found that the Income of the family, so derived, falls short of 60% of the last drawn gross salary (net of taxes) of the deceased employee as stated above, the proposal may be recommended by the Committee of Executives to the Competent Authority for favourable consideration subject to satisfaction of the Committee regarding eligibility of the candidate and fulfilment of all other conditions stipulated for compassionate appointment by the family of the deceased employee in terms of the Scheme. In all other cases, the Committee may summon the applicant for compassionate appointment so as to grant personal hearing with an objective of better understanding/appreciation of facts of the case and In the light of the outcome of personal hearing so granted to the applicant and taking the extenuating factors emerged from such personal hearing into account, if any, recommend the proposal to the Competent Authority or otherwise, 4.3 After approval of a proposal by the Competent Authority, subject to availability of vacancy meant for compassionate appointment within the 5% celling of direct recruitment quota in the clerical and sub staff cadre, the concerned Zonal Office may be advised to conduct Interview of the sponsored candidate in terms of the Recruitment Rules prevalent at the given time to judge the suitability of the candidate for appointment in the Bank's service. The Interview report will be placed before the General Manager (HR) for formal approval of appointment and thereafter, the concerned Zonal Office will be advised to complete the pre-employment formalities etc. and issue the appointment letter to the candidate. 12. After going through the relevant portion of Annexure-A which has been referred to hereinabove, coupled with the decision in Annexure-B, it appears 2025:JHHC:31506 7 that no error has been committed by the Respondent- Bank in issuing the impugned order. 13. It is true that any case is to be governed by the Rules which is effective at that time but it is also a fact that when there is any clarificatory Rules; then, the same should be read along with original Rules. In other words, the original Rules cannot be read in isolation with the clarificatory Rules; and by going through the language of the circular dated 3rd August, 2015, which is operative since 05.08.2014, it is clear that this is clarificatory in nature wherein certain procedure has also been laid down and further the Bank at the highest level has decided to abide by the same. 14. Additionally, the ex-employee who was working at the Respondent-Bank died on 05.08.2014 and today we are in the year 2025; as such, even otherwise; after such a long gap the main object of compassionate appointment to give immediate relief to bereaved family does not survives. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 6th October, 2025 Jk Uploaded on 4/11/2025