Family pension cannot be included in compassionate appointment income calculations absent authority under the applicable scheme.

The petitioner, son of a Punjab National Bank employee who died in service on 29 December 2018, sought compassionate appointment.

After his initial application was not processed because he lacked the requisite qualification, he applied again after passing Class 12.

The Bank rejected his claim, finding the family’s monthly income to be ₹33,824.83—above the limit of ₹23,113.69, calculated as 60% of the deceased employee’s last-drawn salary.

That income calculation included family pension of ₹11,875.55.

The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that the Bank’s scheme did not permit family pension to be included in the monthly-income calculation

1. Whether the Bank correctly applied its compassionate-appointment scheme by including family pension when calculating the family’s monthly income for the 60% criterion

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim, based on that calculation, could be sustained

Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and must be considered under the applicable scheme.

The financial criteria in that scheme must, however, be applied in accordance with its terms; an assessment contrary to the scheme cannot sustain rejection of a claim

The petitioner cited Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, and General Manager (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271, concerning compassionate appointment and assessment of a family’s financial circumstances

The Court’s decision turned on Clause 8 of the Bank’s Circular dated 26 March 2020 and the 60% income criterion; it found no provision in the applicable scheme authorising family pension to be included in that calculation

The Bank assessed the family’s monthly income at ₹33,824.83 by including family pension of ₹11,875.55.

The Court found that the Bank had not identified any provision in the applicable scheme permitting that inclusion.

Excluding the pension reduced the assessed monthly income to ₹21,949.28, below the permissible limit of ₹23,113.69.

Because inclusion of the pension materially affected the outcome, the rejection rested on an erroneous application of the scheme and could not be sustained

It allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 4 October 2024, and directed the Bank to reconsider the petitioner’s claim within two months, treating family pension as excluded from monthly income for the 60% criterion