Norms prevailing on the date of consideration apply for compassionate appointment, especially if retrospectively effective.

The respondent’s father, a Senior Manager at Canara Bank, died in harness on 15.04.2017

The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 12.07.2017 while the operative scheme was the Circular dated 08.04.2015

While the application was pending, a new scheme was introduced via Circular dated 31.01.2018, which was expressly made retrospective from 05.08.2014

This new scheme introduced an income ceiling of ₹35,000 per month for eligibility.

The Bank rejected the respondent’s application on 23.03.2018, calculating her family income at ₹43,333

A Single Judge of the High Court set aside the rejection, ruling that the scheme prevalent at the date of death (2015 scheme) should apply

Whether the application for compassionate appointment should be considered under the scheme prevailing at the time of the employee's death or under a subsequent scheme made applicable retrospectively

the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application govern compassionate appointment claims, as no vested right exists on the date of death

while the policy at the date of demise generally applies, a subsequent policy prevails if it is made applicable retrospectively

the larger bench decisions in N.C. Santhosh and Amit Shrivas must take precedence

The Court reasoned that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a benefit subject to scrutiny of financial dependency

Although the respondent’s father died while the 2015 scheme was in force, the 2018 scheme was explicitly made retrospective from 05.08.2014

Applying the ratio from N.C. Santhosh, the Court found that the norms applicable at the time of actual consideration (March 2018) must be the basis for the decision

Since the 2018 scheme was the governing policy at the time of the rejection and carried retrospective effect covering the date of death, the Bank was legally justified in applying the ₹35,000 income ceiling

The Court concluded that the Single Judge erred by following a two-judge bench decision (Bheemesh) that conflicted with the higher authority of the three-judge bench in N.C. Santhosh

The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge; the rejection of the respondent's application based on the income ceiling was upheld.