1 2026:CGHC:16061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6685 of 2021  Pradeep Kumar Netam S/o Late Shri Manrakhan Lal Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post- Mohala, Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bank Of Baroda Through The Regional Head Bank Of Baroda, Durg Regional Office Sector 10, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. The Branch Manager Bank Of Baroda, Mohala Branch, Post Office And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 8.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 25.6.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 1. 2 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner claim for compassionate appointment as per policy and law laid down by this court. 10.3 That any other relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petition may kindly be passed. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner’s father namely Manrakhan Lal Netam, who was working on the post of Clerk in respondent-bank died in harness on 22.6.2018. He left behind a widow and three children. Petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and same was rejected by Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda vide order dated25.6.2020 on the ground that financial condition of the family is not indigent. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the elder sons of deceased bank employee are employed and one of them is a government servant but they are residing separately and no financial help is being extended by them to petitioner and his mother. He further submits that petitioner and his mother have no source of income, therefore respondent authorities ought to have considered the application moved by the petitioner. He prays to quash the order impugned dated 25.6.2020. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- bank would oppose. He has referred Clauses 6.1 and 13.1 of the Revised Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds 3 dated 24.3.2015 which were applicable on the date of demise. He submits that in the inquiry, it was found that family of the deceased bank employee is not indigent because it has multiple earning members and does not deserve relief from financial destitution. He contends that widow of deceased bank employee is receiving family pension and family has duly been paid the amounts of provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and life insurance, thus the family is not facing any financial hardship. He further contends that respondent authority has rightly rejected the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of General Manager (D&PB) and Others Versus Kunti Tiwary and Another1, State Bank of India and Another Versus Somvir Singh2 and State of Gujarat and Others Versus Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Another3. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 6) Admittedly, claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that financial condition of the family is not indigent. Clause 6.1 of the policy dated 24.3.2015 deals with eligibility and states that claim of a dependent can be considered if family is indigent and deserves 1. 2004 SCC (L&S) 943 2. (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92 3. (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 795 4 immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Clause 13.1 of said policy clearly states that when there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with a prior approval of the competent authority. 7) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kunti Tiwary (supra) held that appointment on compassionate basis is an exception carved out of the general rule for appointment on the basis of open invitation of application and merit and such exception was to be restored to in cases of penury where the dependents of an employee are left without any means of livelihood and that unless some source of livelihood was provided a family would not be able to make both ends meet. 8) In the matter of Somvir Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that employer/ Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. 9) Likewise, in the matter of Arvindkumar T. Tiwari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is not simply another method of recruitment and a claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules and such a category of 5 employment itself, is an exception to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there can be no discrimination in public employment. 10) In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it is very much clear that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and claim to be appointed on such a ground has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations and instructions governing the subject at the relevant time. 11) In the present case, it is not in dispute that two of the three sons of deceased bank employee are employed. Elder son is a government servant whereas the second son runs a computer shop. Furthermore, widow of deceased bank employee is receiving family pension. Bank authorities pursuant to policy dated 24.3.2015 conducted an inquiry into the financial condition of family and came to conclusion that there are multiple earning members in the family and there is no need for immediate assistance from financial destitution. 12)In light of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal principles established by the Apex Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.13 10:53:26 +0530