Case Background
The petitioner’s father was an employee of Allahabad Bank. He died in service on 24.12.2016 while working as an Executive Officer in the bank.
After his father’s death, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. He submitted his application on 28.09.2018, seeking a job in the bank to support the family after the death of the sole earning member.
Allahabad Bank had a scheme titled “Compassionate Appointment in Allahabad Bank to incorporate provision for payment of one time lump sum Ex-gratia Amount in lieu of Compassionate Appointment”. This scheme was notified through Circular dated 03.08.2015 and governed both compassionate appointment and ex-gratia payment in lieu of such appointment.
The petitioner’s application was, however, rejected by order dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Assistant General Manager (T.D.), Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur. The rejection was made by reference to Paragraph 17 of the Circular dated 03.08.2015, which prescribed a “general income criteria”.
Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22993 of 2019. He asked the Court to quash the order dated 27.08.2019 and to direct the bank to grant him compassionate appointment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri, heard both sides and identified two core questions. First, whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the bank’s scheme. Second, whether the “general income criteria” mentioned in Paragraph 17 of the Circular dated 03.08.2015 applied to compassionate appointment or only to ex-gratia payment.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the bank had committed a serious mistake by applying Paragraph 17 to reject his request for a job. According to him, Paragraph 17 clearly related only to the payment of one-time lump sum ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment, not to the grant of a job itself.
He pointed out that the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment were separately and clearly laid down in Paragraph 5 of the Circular. Paragraph 5 dealt with “Eligibility” and contained two sub-clauses:
First, under Paragraph 5.1, the family must be indigent and deserving of immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Second, under Paragraph 5.2, the applicant must be eligible and suitable for the post under the relevant recruitment rules.
The petitioner’s side stressed that these were the only eligibility conditions for a compassionate appointment. Paragraph 17, on the other hand, dealt specifically with “Payment of lump-sum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment”. It allowed a family, which was eligible for compassionate appointment but not in a position to take up employment, to opt for ex-gratia instead. The “general income criteria” in Paragraph 17.1 was designed only for such ex-gratia cases.
Paragraph 17.1 stated that ex-gratia could be granted if the monthly income of the family from all sources was less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary (net of taxes) of the deceased employee. The petitioner argued that this income ceiling was never repeated in Paragraph 5 dealing with compassionate appointment, and therefore could not be a ground for denying a job.
On the other side, counsel for the respondent-bank defended the rejection. They argued that while deciding on compassionate appointment, the bank was entitled to apply the general income criteria in Paragraph 17.1. According to them, the bank needed to assess the family income and could refuse compassionate appointment if the income exceeded the prescribed limit.
To support their stand, the bank relied on a Supreme Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653. The bank particularly referred to paragraphs 19, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of that judgment.
In Shashi Kumar, the Supreme Court held that schemes for compassionate appointment must be applied according to their terms, and factors like family pension and other welfare benefits could be considered while assessing whether a family was in indigent circumstances. The case emphasised that courts should not direct the State or an employer to act in a way that goes against the express terms of a policy.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court carefully examined the wording of the bank’s Circular dated 03.08.2015. The Court noted that the bank had formulated a combined policy for both compassionate appointment and ex-gratia payment. But within that policy, separate provisions governed each benefit.
The Court extracted Paragraph 5, which clearly set out the eligibility for compassionate appointment. It then extracted Paragraph 17 and 17.1, which dealt with “Payment of lump-sum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment” and set out the general income criteria of 60% of the last drawn gross salary.
The Court observed that the bank’s own scheme drew a clear line between the two benefits. Paragraph 5 governed compassionate appointments, and there was no mention of any general income criteria or 60% income ceiling there. Paragraph 17, on the other hand, expressly applied when a family, otherwise eligible for compassionate job, chose instead to receive ex-gratia because it could not take up employment.
The Court held that, reading the Circular as a whole, Paragraph 17 and the attached income test were meant only for ex-gratia payments and not for deciding who should get a compassionate job. The policy did not use the word “or” to mix the two conditions. It specifically spoke of payment of lump sum ex-gratia amount “in lieu of” compassionate appointment, making it an alternative, not an additional hurdle for getting a job.
Therefore, when the respondent-bank invoked Paragraph 17 and the 60% income rule to reject the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment, it acted contrary to its own scheme. The Court held that for deciding compassionate appointment, only Paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 were relevant. The family’s financial condition was to be assessed to see whether it was indigent and needed immediate assistance, but there was no strict 60% income ceiling prescribed in Paragraph 5.
The Court also considered the Supreme Court decision in Shashi Kumar cited by the bank. It concluded that the said judgment did not help the respondent-bank. Shashi Kumar simply reaffirmed that employers must follow the express terms of their schemes. Here, the express terms of the bank’s Circular dated 03.08.2015 made it clear that the general income criteria in Paragraph 17 related only to ex-gratia, not to compassionate appointment.
In light of this reasoning, the Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for reconsideration of his claim. The rejection order dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Assistant General Manager (T.D.), Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur, was set aside.
Instead of directly ordering appointment, the Court adopted a balanced approach. It remanded the matter back to the respondent-bank with a specific direction: reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment without referring to Paragraph 17 of the Circular dated 03.08.2015.
The Court further directed the bank to complete this exercise and to pass a speaking (reasoned) order within two months from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for families of deceased bank employees, especially in cases involving Allahabad Bank’s compassionate appointment scheme dated 03.08.2015.
The Patna High Court made it clear that a bank cannot import income conditions meant for ex-gratia payment and use them to reject claims for compassionate appointment. The eligibility for a job must be judged strictly under the correct clause of the policy.
For bereaved families, this means that where a scheme clearly separates conditions for compassionate appointment and for ex-gratia, the bank must not mix them up. If it does, the decision can be challenged in court.
For banks and other employers, the judgment is a reminder that they must follow their own schemes faithfully. Any attempt to read additional conditions into eligibility clauses can be struck down.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can Allahabad Bank apply the “general income criteria” of Paragraph 17 of the 03.08.2015 Circular to decide whether to grant compassionate appointment?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that Paragraph 17, including the 60% income test in Paragraph 17.1, applies only to payment of lump-sum ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment, not to compassionate appointment itself. Eligibility for compassionate appointment is governed only by Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2.
Issue: Was the rejection order dated 27.08.2019, declining compassionate appointment to the petitioner, legally sustainable?
Answer: No. The Court set aside the order as it was based on an inapplicable clause (Paragraph 17). The matter was remanded to the bank for fresh consideration under the correct eligibility criteria.
Issue: What relief did the Court grant to the petitioner?
Answer: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order dated 27.08.2019, and directed the respondent-bank to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment without applying Paragraph 17, and to pass a speaking order within two months.
Cases Cited by the Court
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 – cited by the respondent-bank; the High Court held that this decision did not assist the bank in light of the specific wording of the Circular dated 03.08.2015.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22993 of 2019
Case Title: Prashant Kumar @ Prasant Kumar v. The Allahabad Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 437
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Date of Judgment: 29.03.2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
- For the respondents (Allahabad Bank and its officers): Sri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Senior Advocate; Dr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging rejection of compassionate appointment claim by a bank employee’s dependent.
Link to Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
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.
