Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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