Wholly dependent divorced daughters qualify for compassionate appointment; financial indigency must be assessed realistically and humanely.

The petitioner’s father, an Assistant Manager at Corporation Bank (now Union Bank of India), died in harness on January 7, 2020, after over 34 years of service.

The petitioner, a divorcee who claimed total dependency on her father, applied for a compassionate appointment.

Following an initial oral rejection, she filed WPS No. 5113/2020, where the High Court directed the Bank to reconsider her application specifically in light of her marital status.

On May 5, 2022, the respondent Bank issued an impugned order rejecting the claim again, asserting that the family was not financially indigent, the petitioner was not a dependent, and she did not meet the recruitment age criteria.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that as a divorcee residing with her father, she was wholly dependent on him.

1. Whether the respondent Bank failed to comply with the High Court's prior direction to properly evaluate the petitioner's marital status and dependency for compassionate appointment.

2. Whether a divorcee daughter constitutes a "dependent family member" eligible for compassionate appointment under the Bank's applicable scheme.

The Court applied the principle that compassionate appointment must be governed by the scheme in force on the date of the employee's death, as settled in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015).

It relied on Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989) and Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2000), which mandate that authorities adopt a humane, pragmatic, and expeditious approach to mitigate immediate financial hardship.

Further, per Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar (2006) and SBI v. Raj Kumar (2010), once a claimant falls within the definition of a "dependent family member," the claim must be considered fairly without hyper-technical objections.

The Court found that the respondent Bank’s rejection was "mechanical" and failed to adhere to the Court’s previous mandate to reconsider the petitioner's status as a divorcee.

The Court observed that the petitioner was residing with and was wholly dependent on her father following her divorce; her temporary prior employment in a private firm did not disqualify her status as a dependent at the time of the father's death.

The Court reasoned that the Bank’s policy explicitly includes "wholly dependent daughters" (including divorcees) within the ambit of eligible family members.

It determined that financial indigency must be assessed realistically rather than through a cursory glance at terminal benefits or prior employment, and the Bank failed to conduct a holistic assessment of the family’s actual financial condition.

It held that a divorcee daughter, if dependent on the deceased employee at the time of death, qualifies as a "dependent family member" under the scheme.

The Court directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim strictly according to the scheme applicable on January 7, 2020, and to pass a reasoned, speaking order within 90 days.

If found eligible, the respondents must grant the compassionate appointment on an appropriate post in accordance with the law.