Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Dismisses Suit - Appointment On Compassionate Basis Is A Concession Not A Right – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


"Appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right... the criteria laid down in the Rules and Schemes applicable must be satisfied by all aspirants," Supreme Court.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and dismissed a suit seeking compassionate appointment. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, emphasized the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment and clarified that it is not a vested right but an exception to the general rule of recruitment.

The court stated, "Appointment on compassionate basis does not create any vested right... it is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable at the relevant point of time that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment."

The case involved Bank of Baroda and Baljit Singh, whose father, an employee of the bank, passed away while in service. Baljit Singh sought appointment on compassionate grounds, claiming that he fulfilled the criteria under the bank's scheme. However, the bank rejected his application based on his family's financial status.

The Supreme Court examined the scheme and observed that the family's income exceeded 60% of the total emoluments of Baljit Singh's deceased father, rendering him ineligible for compassionate appointment. The court criticized the High Court for not considering the factual details and solely relying on judgments in its decision.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that a direction by a High Court to consider cases for compassionate appointment outside the policy's terms is impermissible, as it would amount to rewriting the policy. It reiterated that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be in accordance with the applicable scheme, and the court cannot add or subtract from its terms.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the bank's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed Baljit Singh's suit seeking declaration and mandatory injunction. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

This judgment provides clarity on the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment and reinforces the importance of adhering to the prevailing scheme. It reaffirms that compassionate appointment is an exception and not an absolute right, which must be considered within the framework of the applicable rules and regulations.

Date of Decision: June 21, 2023

BANK OF BARODA & ORS. vs BALJIT SINGH                                                    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/21-Jun-2023-Bank-Of-Baroda-Vs-Baljeet-Singh.pdf"]

Latest Legal News