Compassionate appointment can’t be denied only because family is non-indigent: Bombay HC

The Bombay HC recently directed the Central Bank of India to consider the case of an Ahmednagar resident whose plea was rejected by the financial institution

Mumbai An eligible person cannot be denied employment on compassionate grounds only because his family is not impoverished, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC) said recently and directed the Central Bank of India to consider the case of an Ahmednagar resident whose plea was rejected by the financial institution.

HC has now directed the bank to consider the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of his seniority in the list of such candidates. (HT File)

“It is unheard of that compassionate appointment could be refused to an eligible member of the family, which has lost its sole bread-earner, if the family was not indigent,” said the bench of justice Ravindra Ghuge and justice SG Mehare.

“We have not come across any such example when the compassionate appointment is refused to an eligible member only on the ground that the family has funds to survive, and therefore, would not need a source of income,” the bench added and allowed the petition filed by the resident, Nitin Arawade.

Arawade’s father Yohan was employed with the public sector bank. After 34 years of service, Yohan had to take voluntary retirement in June 2015 as the medical board of the bank found him incapacitated on account of a medical condition.

Thereafter, Arawade applied to the bank for appointment on compassionate grounds, but on March 31, 2018, his plea was rejected only on the ground that his family was not indigent. Nitin had then moved HC.

The bank responded to his petition, contending that the ex-employee’s family had received gratuity amount, provident fund accumulations as well as pension and did not need financial support.

HC, however, refused to accept the bank’s contention.

“We are unable to accede to the submission by the respondent (bank) that because of such payments, an eligible person can be refused compassionate appointment,” said the bench.

HC said gratuity, provident fund and monthly pension are legal rights of an employee or his family, if the sole earner has either died in harness or has been medically incapacitated leading to his retirement.

“Payment of these amounts cannot be considered as an impediment or an embargo on the appointment of an eligible member of the family on compassionate basis,” the bench observed.

HC added that the bank would be justified in in assessing the financial status of the family of an employee, only for granting a one-time financial aid, as an alternative to compassionate appointment under the bank’s scheme.

“However, whether, the family is indigent or not, cannot be the basis for refusing compassionate appointment to an otherwise eligible candidate,” the bench said.

HC has now directed the bank to consider Arawade’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of his seniority in the list of such candidates.