Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010186312025 2026:GAU-AS:7427 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4973/2025 KHANINDRA MOHAN NATH S/O- LATE MADHU RAM NATH, R/O- VILL.- KHAS SONAPUR, P.O. MARUACHOWKI, P.S. SIPAJHAR, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHAIRMAN SECRETARY, P.B. NO. 12, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, INDIA. 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE DISPUR (OPP. ASSAM SECRETARIAT) GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE REGIONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001. 4:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (B AND O) STATE BANK OF INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DIBRUGARH SHRI GOPAL GOSHALA T.R. PHUKAN ROAD DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001. 5:THE CHIEF MANAGER Page No.# 2/7 STATE BANK OF INDIA ROWTA CHARIALI BARUAH NH-15 P.O. ROWTA CHARIALI DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM PIN- 784508 Advocate for the Petitioner : K U AHMED, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J BARUAH (ALL RESPONDENT), B SAHA (ALL RESPONDENT) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 26/05/2026 Heard Mr. K U Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J Baruah, learned Standing counsel, State Bank of India, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner, Madhu Ram Nath, while working as a Guard at the Rowta Branch of the respondent No. 1 Bank, had died-in-harness on 14.02.2022. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the scheme in vogue in the Bank in this connection. The case of the petitioner on being considered by the respondent Bank, Page No.# 3/7 vide communication dated 12.03.2025, the application made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be rejected, holding that the monthly income of the family of father of the petitioner was higher than 75% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee. It was further projected therein that the deceased employee had an unmarried son, who is employed and was drawing a gross salary of Rs.46,547/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty Seven) as per the proposal submitted earlier. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected and the proposal was returned with an advice to submit the proposal for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although, the brother of the petitioner is working in the Indian Navy, he had already separated from the family of the petitioner and was not providing any amount from his salaries for the maintenance of the petitioner’s family. Accordingly, he submits that the salary drawn by his brother was not permissible to be so computed for the purpose of arriving at the total income of the family of the petitioner. 4.1 Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the event, the salary drawn by the brother of the petitioner is removed and the calculation made, it would be found that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the scheme holding the field. 5. Per contra, Mr. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, SBI, appearing for the respondents, by drawing the attention of this Court to the revised scheme for Page No.# 4/7 compassionate appointment in State Bank of India, has submitted that the said scheme mandates that the compassionate appointment will be sanctioned to the dependents of the deceased, where the monthly income of the family is less than 75% of the last drawn gross salary by the deceased. He submits that on an enquiry made, in pursuance to the receipt of the application from the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, it was revealed that the petitioner’s brother was employed in Indian Navy and was also drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.46,547/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty Seven). In terms of the said scheme, the said amount being required to be also computed as the family income of the family of the deceased employee, the same was also reckoned and on reckoning the same, along with the other income received by the family, it was found that the gross income of the family was higher than 75% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee. 5.1 The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the pay slip brought on record by the petitioner is for the month of February, 2022 and submits that the father of the petitioner, having died-in-harness on 14.02.2022, the salary for the month of February, 2022 was not calculated for the whole month, but proportionately for the period the father had so served. He submits that the gross salary as reflected, therein, cannot therefore form the basis for the calculation required to be made. 5.2 Mr. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, SBI has referred to the pay slip of the father of the petitioner for the month of January, 2022 and has submitted that the said pay slip and the gross salary as reflected therein, was taken as the basis for the calculation made for ascertaining the eligibility of the petitioner, herein, for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Page No.# 5/7 5.3 In the above premises, Mr. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, SBI submits that the petitioner’s family is entitled to an Ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and the same was not released to the petitioner’s family in view of the pendency of the present proceedings. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. It is a settled position of law that a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds can be directed to be considered only within the parameters of the scheme, so formulated for the purpose. In the case on hand, for the appointment on compassionate grounds, a scheme was already in vogue and the same was subsequently revised. The application submitted by the petitioner was considered under the Revised Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in State Bank of India. 7.1 Clause 7.3 of the said Revised Scheme pertains to the determination of the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, when an application for appointment of a family member on compassionate grounds is so made. 7.2 Clause 7.3 of the said Revised Scheme mandates that compassionate appointment in such cases would be sanctioned to the dependent of the deceased employee only, where the monthly income of the family is less than 75% of the last drawn gross salary by the deceased. The manner for determination of the monthly income of the family is set out, therein. 8. The respondents had determined the last drawn salary of the deceased employee by reckoning the last salary drawn by him, along with the amount Page No.# 6/7 drawn by him as Defence Pension. Thereafter, in terms of Clause 7.3 of the Scheme, the family income of the petitioner’s family was calculated. On such calculation being made, it was found that the income of the family was higher than 75% of the last drawn salary by the deceased employee. 9. The respondent authorities for the purpose of arriving at the income of the family of the petitioner, had also reckoned the salaries drawn by the brother of the petitioner as a member of the Indian Navy. It is with the inclusion of the salary drawn by the brother of the petitioner that the computation of the family income of the family of the petitioner was so made. 10. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that although his brother is working in the Indian Navy and drawing a gross salary of Rs.46,547/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty Seven), he had left the house and was not providing any help to the family. The said statement is not supported by any material brought on record. Accordingly, the said contention of the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 11. This Court finds that the income of the family would also include the income drawn by each member of the family. The brother of the petitioner is to be deemed to be a member of the family and accordingly, the inclusion of his income in the computation made with regard to the family income of the petitioner is in no way erroneous. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered strictly in terms of the provisions of the Scheme in vogue and no error is found thereon. Accordingly, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on Page No.# 7/7 compassionate grounds would not mandate any interference. 13. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court refers to the submissions made by Mr. Baruah, learned Standing counsel, State Bank of India to the effect that the petitioner’s family is entitled to gratuity in lieu of compassionate appointment and the same was not being released only on account of pendency of the present writ petition. 14. It is directed that the said gratuity in lieu of family pension be released within a period of 1 (one) month from today, to the person, who is presently in receipt of pension with regard to the services rendered by the father of the petitioner. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant