Case Background
The case came before the Patna High Court as a writ petition filed in 2018. The petitioner is the son of a deceased employee of the State Bank of India, Anisabad Branch, Patna. His father was working as a messenger (sandesh wahak) and died in harness on 12.5.2003.
The petitioner’s mother had already passed away before his father’s death. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was about nine years old and a minor. He later attained majority on 6.8.2011.
After becoming major, the petitioner applied to the State Bank of India on 14.8.2012 seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the post of messenger. He claimed this benefit on account of his father’s death in service.
According to the writ petition, he did not receive any decision or relief on this first application. He kept sending further representations, the last being on 26.6.2018, but still got no positive response from the Bank.
Along with the job, the petitioner also asked for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment and complained that his family pension, which he had been receiving, was suddenly stopped after January 2018 though he had not yet completed 25 years of age.
Finding no redress from the Bank, he approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20818 of 2018 seeking directions for compassionate appointment, ex-gratia payment, restoration of family pension and all consequential benefits.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard both sides. The respondents were the State Bank of India through its General Manager, the Regional Manager and the Branch Manager, Anisabad Branch.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that at the time when his father died in 2003, the Bank had a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, his later application should be tested according to that scheme which existed on the date of death.
The petitioner’s counsel further pointed out that, as revealed from the Bank’s counter affidavit, his application for compassionate appointment had been rejected only sometime in 2018. The reason given by the Bank was that the scheme for compassionate appointment was withdrawn with effect from 4.8.2005.
Counsel submitted that the Bank later issued a circular dated 13.5.2011 introducing a new scheme for compassionate appointment in exceptional cases. However, this fresh scheme did not cover cases of employees who had died before 4.8.2005, and thus excluded the petitioner’s case. It was argued that because a valid scheme existed at the time of his father’s death, the Bank ought to have considered his claim under that scheme and not reject it merely because the scheme was withdrawn later.
Regarding ex-gratia payment, the petitioner argued that the Bank had also framed a scheme for a lump sum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. He had applied under that scheme as an alternative to employment. The Bank, by letter dated 15.12.2018, asked him to submit various certificates and documents mentioned in that communication. He contended that despite this, his ex-gratia request remained undecided and the Court should direct the Bank to consider and grant it.
Lastly, on pension, the petitioner said he had been regularly receiving family pension under the Bank’s scheme up to January 2018. According to him, payment was supposed to continue till he turned 25 years old. Yet the Bank stopped paying from February 2018 to July 2018. He requested a direction to release these arrears within a fixed time.
On the other hand, counsel for the State Bank of India opposed the writ petition. They stressed that the death occurred in 2003, but the petitioner’s first application for compassionate appointment was made only in 2012, almost nine years later. This, according to the Bank, showed serious delay and laches.
The Bank maintained that the rejection of his application in 2018 was justified because their scheme for compassionate appointment had already been discontinued with effect from 4.8.2005. They argued that the writ petition should be dismissed both due to change of policy and due to the long gap between death and application.
On the ex-gratia aspect, the Bank pointed out that they could not process or consider the petitioner’s ex-gratia claim because he had not submitted the required documents even after being asked to do so by the letter dated 15.12.2018.
As regards the pension arrears, Bank’s counsel drew the Court’s attention to their letter dated 8.1.2019 (Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit). In that letter, the Bank had asked the petitioner to submit a life certificate so that the arrears of family pension could be paid.
After hearing both sides, the Court first set out the key dates. The father died on 12.5.2003 while in service. The petitioner, then a minor, attained majority on 6.8.2011. He applied for compassionate appointment on 14.8.2012 and again in 2018. The Bank rejected his request for compassionate appointment in 2018 based on withdrawal of the scheme from 4.8.2005.
In examining whether a compassionate job should nevertheless be ordered, the Court relied upon the well-known judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 138.
By quoting the key passage, the High Court recalled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public employment which requires open advertisement and selection by merit. This exception is allowed only for dependants of an employee who dies in harness leaving the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
The Supreme Court had clarified that the real object of compassionate employment is to help the deceased employee’s family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the sole breadwinner, not to give a job as a matter of right to every heir of a deceased employee. The authority must examine the financial condition of the family, and a job is to be offered only if the family cannot meet the crisis without it.
Relying on this principle, the Patna High Court looked at the time gap and circumstances of the present case. The Court noted that the first application for compassionate appointment was filed more than nine years after the death. The family had managed to tide over the financial crisis for a considerable period after 2003.
With this background, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a case for compassionate appointment. It held that the relief seeking a direction to appoint him on compassionate ground could not be granted and was fit to be rejected.
On the ex-gratia claim, the Court took note that the Bank had already written to the petitioner on 15.12.2018, during the pendency of the writ case, asking him to furnish specific documents so his ex-gratia application could be processed.
Considering this, the Court did not itself decide whether he was entitled to ex-gratia, but issued a clear procedural direction. It directed that the petitioner must supply all required documents to the Bank within six weeks. After receiving them, the Bank must decide his application for ex-gratia payment within three months.
The Court further ordered that if any amount is found payable as ex-gratia, it must be paid to the petitioner within that same three-month period. If, on the other hand, the Bank finds that no ex-gratia is payable, then a reasoned order explaining the decision must be communicated to the petitioner within the same time.
Regarding the arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018, the Court took a more direct approach. Since the petitioner was already pursuing this writ petition, it removed the earlier condition of submitting a life certificate for that particular period.
The Court directed that the Bank must pay the arrears of family pension for the period from February 2018 to July 2018 within three months from the date the petitioner produces or the Bank receives a copy of the Court’s order. For this limited period, no life certificate is required.
With these findings and directions, the writ application was disposed of. The Court partly granted relief by giving directions regarding ex-gratia processing and family pension arrears but refused to grant compassionate appointment.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for families of bank and other public-sector employees who seek compassionate jobs many years after the death.
The Court has reinforced that compassionate appointment is not a lifelong or automatic right. It is meant only to handle the immediate financial emergency after the breadwinner’s death. If the family can manage for many years without such a job, the claim weakens.
The decision also shows that even when a compassionate appointment claim fails, dependants may still seek other benefits such as ex-gratia payment or pending family pension, provided they follow the required procedure and documentation.
For dependants in Bihar, especially in bank service cases, this ruling signals that delays of many years can be fatal to a claim for compassionate appointment. However, it also assures that genuine monetary benefits like pension arrears cannot be withheld on technicalities like a life certificate when the person is actively litigating in court.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner, son of a bank employee who died in 2003, was entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the post of messenger.
Answer: No. The Court held that the application was filed more than nine years after the death and the family had already overcome the immediate financial crisis. Compassionate appointment, being meant only to tide over a sudden crisis, was not justified. - Issue: How should the petitioner’s claim for ex-gratia lump sum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment be dealt with.
Answer: The Court directed the petitioner to furnish all documents sought in the Bank’s letter dated 15.12.2018 within six weeks, and ordered the Bank to decide the ex-gratia application within three months, either paying the amount found due or passing a reasoned rejection. - Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018, and if a life certificate was a pre-condition for payment for this period.
Answer: Yes, he was entitled. The Court ordered the Bank to pay the arrears for that period within three months of receiving the Court’s order, without insisting on a life certificate for those months.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 138 – relied upon for the principles governing compassionate appointment and its limited purpose to meet sudden financial crisis.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20818 of 2018
Case Title: Rahul Kumar Singh vs. The State Bank of India and Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Date of Judgment: 13.11.2025
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 7
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate; Mrs. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Advocates for Respondents (State Bank of India): Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Ambarish Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) seeking compassionate appointment, ex-gratia payment, and family pension arrears.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the complete judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
