Bank's denial of compassionate appointment upheld as scheme-based; only available when dependants face penury, family income reasonably assessed

The SC allowed the bank's appeal and set aside the HC order directing reconsideration of a compassionate-appointment claim. The Court held compassionate appointment is strictly governed by the employer's scheme and available only where dependants are left in penury; the bank properly considered family pension, terminal benefits, investments and other income and reasonably found the family not without means of livelihood. The HC erred in reweighing the financial sufficiency and could not override the scheme-based decision.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether assessment of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the employer's scheme may lawfully include terminal benefits, gratuity, provident fund, family pension, proceeds of investments/LIC and income from other sources in determining whether the deceased employee's family is "left in penury and without any means of livelihood".

2. Whether a writ court may reassess and substitute its own view as to what constitutes a reasonable monthly income or penury for the family, contrary to a decision made by the Competent Authority under the scheme after accounting for prescribed factors.

3. Whether there exists any freestanding right to compassionate appointment outside the terms of the employer's scheme, rules or executive instructions.

4. Whether the High Court's direction to remit for fresh consideration was vitiated by ignoring the scheme-prescribed criteria and by effectively altering the scheme's standard of "penury".

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Inclusion of terminal benefits, family pension and other specified items in assessing penury

Legal framework: The employer's scheme expressly lists factors to be taken into account when assessing the family's financial condition, including family pension, gratuity, CPF contributions, compensation or welfare fund payments, proceeds of LIC and other investments, income from other sources, income of other family members, size of family and liabilities.

Precedent treatment: The Court referenced authoritative principles that compassionate appointments are an exception to open competitive recruitment and are intended to tide over sudden crisis; award or denial must conform to the scheme (citing established jurisprudence that appointments should be on merit except narrow humanitarian exception).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Competent Authority legitimately considered each factor expressly mandated by the scheme, including terminal benefits and monthly family pension, when finding the family was not left in penury. The Court held that taking such items into account is mandated by the scheme and therefore lawful; the Authority did not err in computing net surplus after liabilities and in considering income from agricultural land and other sources.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a scheme prescribes factors for financial assessment, the competent authority may and must consider those factors (including terminal benefits and family pension) in determining whether dependants are left in penury; such consideration is consistent with the purpose of compassionate appointment.

Conclusion: Inclusion of terminal benefits, family pension and other specified items in the financial assessment is permissible and required by the scheme; their consideration does not disqualify the authority's decision.

Issue 2 - Scope of judicial review and propriety of High Court substituting its view on sufficiency of income

Legal framework: Article 16 establishes equality of opportunity and restricts special claims to those provided by rules/scheme; compassionate appointment is an exception governed by employer's scheme. Judicial review is limited to assessing whether the decision-making process complied with the scheme and was vitiated by illegality, perversity or non-application of mind.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on prior decisions emphasizing that compassionate employment's object is humanitarian relief to tide over sudden crisis and that indiscriminate grants would imperil open recruitment; High Courts cannot dilute scheme criteria or substitute their own standards for "penury".

Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court assessed the family's income on its own and concluded that the monthly amount could not be treated as removing penury, thereby directing reconsideration. The Supreme Court held that such an exercise amounted to substituting the High Court's view for the Competent Authority's evaluation under the scheme. The proper question for the writ court was limited to whether the authority followed the scheme and reached a decision free from legal infirmity; it was not entitled to re-evaluate the evidence to vary the scheme's tested standard or to adopt a different benchmark of "not very well-to-do" vs. "penury".

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a writ court must not usurp the evaluative function entrusted to the Competent Authority under a scheme by substituting its own view on factual sufficiency; judicial interference is warranted only if the decision-making process is vitiated or not in accordance with the scheme.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in remitting the matter based on its own income sufficiency assessment; the court's role was confined to review for conformity with the scheme, which was not shown to be absent or vitiated.

Issue 3 - Existence (or non-existence) of a right to compassionate appointment outside the scheme

Legal framework: Recruitment to public employment is generally to be by open competition; compassionate appointment is an exception created by the employer's scheme. No freestanding constitutional or common-law right to compassionate appointment exists beyond what the scheme confers.

Precedent treatment: The Court reiterated established law that dependants do not possess special or additional claims save for those conferred by rules or employer schemes; hardship alone does not create entitlement beyond the scheme.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that any claim to compassionate appointment must be traceable to the employer's scheme, executive instructions or statutory provision; absent such entitlement, there is no claim to appointment de hors the scheme. The Competent Authority applied the scheme; no claim was made that the authority acted contrary to the scheme.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - compassionate appointment is strictly governed by the employer's scheme and no independent right exists to claim compassionate employment outside that framework; hardship does not generate entitlement outside the scheme.

Conclusion: There is no right to compassionate appointment other than that conferred by the employer's scheme; the decision denying appointment that conforms to scheme criteria cannot be set aside merely on equitable grounds.

Issue 4 - Whether the High Court's order impermissibly varied the scheme

Legal framework: Courts must not vary or dilute the scheme's criteria; administrative authorities empowered by the scheme must be allowed to apply the prescribed factors and exercise their discretion within that framework.

Precedent treatment: The Court cited prior authority warning against converting the penury test into a looser "not very well-to-do" standard and against judicializing policy decisions embedded in schemes.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Division Bench's direction effectively lowered the threshold of penury and asked for reconsideration without regard to scheme factors; such alteration would amount to varying the scheme, which judicially is impermissible. The High Court neglected the explicit scheme list and thus performed an impermissible reassessment of the factual matrix.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a court cannot vary scheme standards by imposing its own yardstick; remittal is inappropriate where the Competent Authority has applied the scheme and no procedural or legal infirmity is shown.

Conclusion: The High Court's order remitting for fresh consideration on the basis of its own assessment was impermissible; the appellate court set aside that order and upheld the Competent Authority's decision made in accordance with the scheme.

---