Compassionate appointment claims must be assessed under the scheme prevailing on the date of consideration.

Rajesh Basfore’s father, a UBI employee, died in harness on 31 July 2018.

Rajesh applied for compassionate appointment.

After UBI’s amalgamation with PNB, the Bank rejected his claim on 16 April 2022, citing both inadequate educational qualifications and family income exceeding the applicable threshold.

A subsequent writ petition challenging that decision was dismissed on 18 November 2024.

Rajesh later sought reconsideration, having acquired the educational qualification for a Sub-Staff post.

On 10 November 2025, the Bank again rejected his claim, this time on financial-eligibility grounds.

The learned single Judge dismissed Rajesh’s challenge to that decision, leading to the present appeal.

1. Whether the learned single Judge could dismiss the second writ petition solely because the earlier rejection of Rajesh’s claim had attained finality, without deciding his challenge to the Bank’s subsequent determination of financial eligibility.

2. Whether the Bank, when reconsidering Rajesh’s application, was required to apply the scheme prevailing on the date of consideration and whether its financial-eligibility assessment was sustainable.

A compassionate-appointment claim must be considered under the norms prevailing on the date the application is considered; the dependent has no vested right to appointment but is entitled to consideration under the applicable scheme.

The Court relied on N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, 2020 Supreme (SC) 237, for that principle.

Under the Scheme of 2022, the financial threshold described by the Court was whether the family’s monthly income was less than 75% of the deceased employee’s last-drawn gross monthly salary.

The Court also considered the 60% threshold under the earlier schemes and the 2020 Scheme’s provision permitting requests to be considered with greater sympathy and relaxed standards, depending on the facts and circumstances.

No statute was identified as a basis for the decision.

The earlier writ petition and the present one arose from distinct decisions and causes of action: the earlier rejection relied, among other things, on Rajesh’s educational qualifications, whereas the later order followed reconsideration and rejected the claim on financial grounds.

The learned single Judge therefore should not have declined to examine the later financial assessment merely because the earlier decision had attained finality.

The Bank’s calculation showed family income of Rs. 17,493.90 and gross monthly salary of Rs. 28,047.19; 75% of salary was Rs. 21,035.39, so the income fell below the 2022 Scheme’s threshold.

Even under the 60% threshold, the Court noted that using the family pension actually received would put family income at Rs. 15,293.19, below the threshold of Rs. 16,828.31.

If the enhanced pension figure were used, the excess over that threshold would be only Rs. 665.59; the Court considered rejection on that narrow margin inconsistent with the 2020 Scheme’s permissive provision for relaxed consideration.

It further held that a restrictive interpretation defeating the Scheme’s beneficial object was unwarranted in the circumstances.

The appeal and connected application were disposed of, with no order as to costs.