AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66355 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13945 of 2020 Petitioner :- Maustin Massey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Kumar Gupta,Shailendra Ratan Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Ratan Agrawal Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. Heard Shri Anant Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The father of the petitioner was an employee in the respondent Bank who died in harness. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been declined by the impugned order dated 04.01.2020 as his father had suffered a major punishment during the course of his service. 4. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder: "With reference to your application on the captioned subject, we have to inform you that, as per the Bank's records, Late Sushil Massey was imposed punishment of bringing down his basic pay by two stages in the time scale of pay vide FGMO Lucknow Memo No. FGMO:LKO:5788:10 dated 16/12/2010 for Gross Misconducts as Riotous and disorderly behavior on the premises of the Bank and willful damage for attempt to cause damage to the property of the Bank. Taking into account the unsatisfactory service record of Late Sushil Massey and above facts, your request for Compassionate Appointment has been declined." 5. The father of the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the respondent Bank on 16.01.1996. The petitioner's father faced disciplinary proceedings in the year 2010 essentially for drunken behaviour. For the said acts of misconduct, a major penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages in time scale pay was imposed. Thereafter, on account of his subsequent good conduct, the petitioner's father was promoted to the post of cashier on 14.07.2014. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 13.04.2018. 6. The impugned order dated 04.01.2020 has invalidated the claim of the petitioner on account of the aforesaid penalty imposed on his father during the course of the latter's service. The impugned order was passed on the strength of the following provisions of Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds: "2. The Committee, while concurring with the modifications, made the following observations: A) Committee for Compassionate Appointment will be authorised to decline all requests for compassionate appointment/ex-gratia payment in cases where major penalty was imposed on the ex- employee while in service, and/or where disciplinary action which was pending at the time of death of the ex-employee would have resulted in imposition of major penalty;" 7. The aforesaid provisions under the Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds have to be interpreted in light of the purpose of compassionate ground appointments, the impact of promotion of the deceased employee, and the rights of the petitioner. 8. The eligibility of the grant of compassionate appointment is disclosed in Clause 5 of the Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds. Clause 5 of the said scheme is extracted hereunder: "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 and other investments etc. and the employment of family members, size of the family & liabilities, if any will be taken into consideration. 5.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. Recruitment Rules will mean the norms which are in force at the time of making the compassionate appointment." 9. Compassionate ground appointments are a welfare measure adopted by model employers. The sole purpose of compassionate ground appointments is to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial distress caused by the sudden death of the employee. This feature alone constituted the kin of a deceased employee into one class and on this sole footing the rationale of compassionate ground appointments was justified by Constitutional Courts. 10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the purpose of grant of compassionate ground appointment can be subserved by the interpretation of the said scheme as accorded by the respondents, and whether debarring the petitioner from appointment solely on the footing that the petitioner's deceased father had suffered a major penalty during service is consistent with law. 11. The claim of the dependents has to be judged entirely on the basis of financial distress which is caused to the family by the death of the employee in harness. The dependents of deceased employee cannot be visited by the penal consequences for a misconduct of a deceased employee during the course of his service, even when such penalty ceased to have effect during the service of the deceased employee. Any other interpretation to Clause 2(A) of the said Scheme will subvert the purpose of grant of compassionate appointments. 12. In the facts of this case, the petitioner's father was promoted to the post of cashier after the imposition of the penalty. With the aforesaid promotion, the adverse impact of the punishment stood effaced. Once the punishment ceased to operate against employee in his career advancement, the negative consequences of the same cannot be fastened upon his son. In this view also the said punishment cannot be made the basis of invalidating the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 13. Punishing future generations in facts and circumstances of this case is not in consonance with any norm of equity, justice and fairness which have to be practised by model employers in their dealings with subordinate employees. A poet has said more evocatively: " जजरर आदर नन ककयय और सज़य बनटट कक अदल ओ इइसयफ कय करययर भभ कयय रखय हह?" For a man's crime you punish his sons Is that the standard of justice? 14. The impugned order dated 04.01.2020 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 15. The matter is remitted to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds as per the provisions of Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds which governs such appointments in the bank and in light of observations made in this order. 16. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 29.4.2025/Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad