Facts
The respondent’s father worked as a daily wager at Canara Bank from 1993 to 2001, was appointed as a Peon in 2001, and later promoted as a Single Window Operator.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3He died of COVID-19 on 12 May 2021. The respondent, who holds a B.E. degree, applied for compassionate appointment.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The Bank rejected the application, relying on payment of terminal benefits and family pension as grounds to conclude that the family was not indigent.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4The Single Judge directed the Bank to consider the respondent under its scheme for a lump-sum ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment. The Bank appealed.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 1–4Issues
1. Whether the Bank should reconsider the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–82. Whether, in light of the earlier Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No. 2022 of 2023, the Bank could offer ex-gratia payment instead of considering compassionate appointment
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5; p. 5, para. 8Law Applied
The judgment cites no statute or general legal test for compassionate appointment.
Source reference: no citationIt relies on the Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No. 2022 of 2023, dated 28 November 2023, which the Court understood to preclude the Bank from reverting to an ex-gratia option after it had rejected a compassionate-appointment application on another ground; the earlier decision had directed consideration and grant of compassionate appointment.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5; p. 5, para. 8The Court also considered the Bank’s compassionate-appointment and ex-gratia arrangements, but did not set out their terms.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 4, 6Reasoning
The Court noted that the Bank had processed applications arising from employee deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, granting employment in some cases and rejecting others.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6It also noted the father’s service history and the respondent’s education, observing that the latter should receive some weight.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7Applying the earlier Division Bench decision, the Court held that the Bank should not retreat to an ex-gratia offer and must reconsider the respondent’s application for compassionate employment.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Holding
The Court directed the Bank to reconsider the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment, preferably within six weeks, and held that it could not instead offer ex-gratia payment in view of the earlier Division Bench decision.
The appeal was disposed of. The Court ordered reconsideration; it did not itself direct that the respondent be appointed.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Original Court PDF
Canara BankvsB. Praveen,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
