Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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