A compassionate appointment scheme cannot exclude married sons when it requires only wholly dependent sons.

The petitioner’s mother, a permanent Full-Time Safai Karamchari with the Central Bank of India, died in harness on 29 March 2024 after more than 21 years of service.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Central Bank’s Scheme for Compassionate Appointment on Compassionate Grounds or Payment of Lumpsum Ex-Gratia Amount dated 8 April 2015.

His application was rejected by order dated 26 August 2025 on the ground that, being married, he could not be treated as wholly dependent on the deceased employee.

The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that Clause 2.2 of the 2015 Scheme included a “wholly dependent son” without distinguishing between a married and unmarried son.

He also relied on his income certificate showing annual income of Rs. 1,10,000.

Whether the Central Bank’s 2015 compassionate appointment scheme excludes a married son from the category of “wholly dependent son” merely because of his marital status?

Whether the Bank could import the requirement of being unmarried from the Officers’ Service Regulations, the Group Health Insurance Policy, the Bipartite Settlement, or the Indian Banks’ Association FAQs into the 2015 compassionate appointment scheme?

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that he was married was legally sustainable?

The Court applied the Central Bank of India’s Scheme for Compassionate Appointment on Compassionate Grounds or Payment of Lumpsum Ex-Gratia Amount dated 8 April 2015, particularly Clause 2, which defines a dependent family member to include a spouse, a “wholly dependent son,” a “wholly dependent daughter,” and, in specified circumstances, a wholly dependent brother or sister.

The Court held that the Scheme itself does not define “wholly dependent” and does not add the qualification “unmarried” to the expressions “son” or “daughter”.

The Central Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, which refer to wholly dependent unmarried children, apply to bank officers and could not govern the petitioner’s case because his mother was a non-officer employee serving as a Full-Time Safai Karamchari.

Similarly, the definition in the Group Health Insurance Policy was confined to that insurance policy and could not be applied to compassionate appointment.

The Indian Banks’ Association FAQs related to an earlier 2014 scheme and could not supplement the later, self-contained 2015 Central Bank scheme.

The Court further noted that dependency was to be assessed substantively, including by reference to the applicable income threshold of Rs. 18,000 per month.

The Court treated the 2015 Scheme as a complete and self-contained instrument and therefore interpreted the eligibility categories according to its express language.

Since Clause 2.2 expressly used the term “wholly dependent son” but omitted the word “unmarried,” the Bank could not introduce that additional restriction by relying on provisions contained in unrelated regulatory or policy documents.

The Officers’ Service Regulations were inapplicable because they concerned officers, whereas the deceased employee was a Safai Karamchari.

The Group Health Insurance Policy addressed a different subject, and the FAQs concerned an earlier compassionate appointment scheme.

The Court also reasoned that the deliberate use of “unmarried” in other instruments, but not in the 2015 Scheme, indicated that the Bank had intentionally omitted that limitation from its compassionate appointment scheme.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s marriage could not, by itself, establish that he was not wholly dependent or disentitle him from consideration.

The rejection order dated 26 August 2025 was quashed and set aside.

The Bank was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the Court’s observations and the applicable 2015 Scheme, and to pass an appropriate order within three months of receiving or being furnished a copy of the judgment.

The writ application was accordingly allowed.