SUSHIL KUMAR vs REGIONAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA

UKHC010188692026

2026:UHC:10033-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
nd
2 Novermber, 2026
Special Appeal No. 447 of 2026

Sushil Kumar --Appellant
Versus

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda
and Others --Respondents

Counsel for the appellant Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel
:
: Mr. Sumit Bajaj, learned counsel
Counsel for the
respondents

The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 05.10.2026, rendered by
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (SS) No. 2262 of
2024, Sushil Kumar Vs. Regional Manager Bank of Baroda
and Others. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by
the appellant challenging the rejection of his claim for
compassionate appointment was dismissed on the ground
that similar claim staked by appellant’s younger brother
for compassionate appointment, was subsequently
rejected, therefore younger brother should have
approached the writ Court for challenging the rejection
order.
2. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is
reproduced below:
“6. Having heard the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, this Court is of the firm opinion that this
writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the primary ground
that application of the younger son of deceased employee,
namely, Ashok Kumar was rejected by the respondents on
the ground that the initial representation was made by the
1

UKHC010188692026

2026:UHC:10033-DB
wife of the deceased to grant employment to the elder son
i.e. Sushil Kumar the petitioner, but, thereafter, the final
representation was made to grant employment to the
younger son i.e. Ashok Kumar. It was also rejected on the
ground that no new documents were submitted by the wife
of the deceased to substantiate the penury condition of the
family and as the competent authority had already arrived
at the decision after examining the matter in its totality
therefore, it does not deem it fit to revisit or change the
decision rejecting the application for appointment on
compassionate ground. The last representation was made to
grant employment on compassionate grounds to the
younger son i.e. Ashok Kumar, but the elder son i.e. Sushil
Kumar has approached this Court. Needless to say this order
will not bar Ashok Kumar whose representation, has been
rejected, to approach this Court.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that father
of the appellant was employed as Group-D employee
(Daftari) in Bank of Baroda, who died while in harness on
13.08.2016. Mother of the appellant made application on
behalf of the appellant for his appointment on
compassionate ground. The said application, however,
was rejected by the competent authority by holding that
the family cannot be said to be living in a state of penury
so as to warrant compassionate appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the Bank-respondent, however,
submits that since appellant’s younger brother also made
application for compassionate appointment after rejection
of appellant’s request, therefore, appellant could not have
filed writ petition challenging the decision taken by the
competent authority, whereby his representation was
rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits
that merely because younger brother of the appellant also
applied for compassionate appointment, cannot denude
2

UKHC010188692026

2026:UHC:10033-DB
the appellant of his right to challenge the decision taken
by competent authority on his request/representation.

6. He further submits that application made on behalf
of appellant by his mother alone was rejected on merits
by holding that the family is not living in a state of
penury, while the request made by appellant’s brother for
compassionate appointment was not rejected on merits
but merely on the ground that similar request made by
appellant was turned down.

7. We find substance made on behalf of the appellant.


8. Appellant and his younger brother are two separate
individuals with independent rights and obligations,
therefore merely because appellant’s younger brother
also applied for compassionate appointment after
rejection of appellant’s application will not deprive the
appellant of his right to challenge the order of rejection
passed on his application by the competent authority.

9. Even otherwise also, the competent authority has
rejected the application made by appellant’s brother not
on merits, but on the ground that prayer for
compassionate appointment made by the appellant was
rejected.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment in question

is interferable.

11. We, therefore, allow this intra-court appeal, set
aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back
3

UKHC010188692026

2026:UHC:10033-DB
to learned Single Judge to hear and decide the writ
petition on merits.


______________________________________

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.



____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 02.11.2026
Mahinder


MAHINDER
SINGH
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031
a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626
D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.11.03 19:08:00 +05'30'
4