Unsatisfactory Service Record of Deceased Employee Cannot Be Grounds to Reject Compassionate Appointment Claim

The petitioner’s father, a ‘Daftary’ with Union Bank of India for over 22 years, died in harness on 07/08/2016.

The petitioner, the sole dependent son belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, applied for a compassionate appointment as a Peon/Messenger under the Bank’s 2015 scheme.

Despite recommendations from local authorities, the Bank rejected the application on 30/01/2018, citing the "unsatisfactory service record" of the deceased.

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ of certiorari, claiming the rejection was based on grounds not present in the policy.

The respondents failed to appear or file a reply despite being served in 2019, leading the court to proceed ex-parte.

1. Whether the respondent Bank can arbitrarily reject a claim for compassionate appointment based on an "unsatisfactory service record" of the deceased when such a criterion is not stipulated in the governing policy.

2. Whether the inordinate delay and lack of reasoning in the impugned order constitute a violation of Article 14 and the benevolent objective of compassionate appointment schemes.

The court primarily applied the principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules intended to provide immediate succour to a family in financial crisis.

Necessity of avoiding delay in compassionate appointment matters.

The object of compassionate appointment is to get the family out of sudden financial crisis and not to provide a post as a matter of inheritance.

Authorities must act within the "four corners of the prevailing policy" and pass reasoned, speaking orders.

The court found that the Bank’s rejection order was "non-speaking" and legally perverse because it imported an "alien criterion"—the deceased's service record—which was nowhere mentioned in the scheme as an exclusionary clause.

The court reasoned that since the policy's objective is to mitigate immediate hardship, weaponizing a past service record to deny survival benefits defeats the "socio-economic purpose" of the benevolent policy.

The court viewed the Bank’s 28-month delay and subsequent failure to represent itself in court as evidence of "glaring arbitrariness" and "apathetic approach".

The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim afresh, strictly according to the policy and without considering the deceased's service record, within 60 days. Finding the Bank’s conduct "unacceptable," the court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within 30 days as compensation for harassment.