Son’s Compassionate Appointment Claim, Filed 13 Years After Father’s Death, Fails: Karnataka HC Finds No Appointment Scheme Then In Force

The petitioner’s father, an employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, died in service on 31 August 2008.

The deceased employee’s wife applied for compassionate appointment in December 2008, but did not pursue the application.

The petitioner applied on 15 April 2021, and the Bank rejected his request by endorsement dated 26 May 2022, referring to a five-year application period under the prevailing scheme.

The petitioner challenged the endorsement under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that no compassionate-appointment scheme existed when his father died and relying on Smt. Vinodamma and Kumari A.G. Ramya.

The Bank opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner applied about 13 years after the death and that the scheme in force at the time did not provide for compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary requirement of equal opportunity in public employment; it is a concession, not a right, and the claimant must satisfy the applicable scheme or rules (N. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617).

The Court also relied on the principle that compassionate relief must remain within the bounds of law, as discussed in Kumari A.G. Ramya v. Syndicate Bank, Manipal, ILR 2000 KAR 2619, with reference to LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandran Ambekar, AIR 1994 SC 2148.

The Bank’s scheme effective from 9 February 2007 provided for lump-sum ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment; the later scheme providing for appointment in exceptional cases took effect from 1 September 2008, after the employee’s death.

A further revised scheme took effect from 23 February 2019 and included a normal five-year period for considering applications.

The Court found that the employee died on 31 August 2008, when the Bank’s 2007 scheme—providing ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment—was in force.

The scheme introducing exceptional-case appointments took effect only on 1 September 2008, and the 2019 scheme was not applicable to the circumstances of the employee’s death.

The petitioner’s 2021 application was filed about 13 years after the death.

The Court held that Vinodamma concerned a different bank and a distinct scheme, so it did not govern this case; nor could sympathetic considerations override the applicable scheme.

Applying the principle that compassionate appointment is a concession subject to the governing rules, the Court found no error in the Bank’s decision.

The writ petition was rejected as devoid of merit.