In a significant challenge to the exercise of administrative discretion under a compassionate appointment scheme, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur stepped in to examine a deeply troubling institutional failure by the Union Bank of India, formerly Allahabad Bank, that left a young man without employment for years despite his own Bank's internal committee recommending him for appointment. At the heart of the dispute lies a question that strikes at the fairness of public employment: can a Bank reject a compassionate appointment application citing delay, when it was the Bank's own silence, inaction, and absence of any formal offer or rejection that caused that very delay in the first place?
The controversy began when Vibhor Golash's father, Late Vishwaroop Golash, a Manager at Allahabad Bank's Jaipur Tonk Road Branch, passed away on January 26, 2015, leaving behind a family in acute financial distress. His mother promptly initiated a compassionate appointment application under the Bank's own scheme. When Vibhor appeared for a personal interaction in July 2016, the Bank informally suggested that he pursue graduation first and then apply for a clerical post, which he did, diligently completing his degree and reapplying in January 2020. His case went before the Bank's Executive Committee, which recommended his appointment on March 23, 2020.
Yet, in a shocking turn, the Competent Authority overruled its own committee and rejected the application on July 27, 2020, citing "inordinate delay" and the fact that his mother, the family pensioner, had since passed away. The Bank produced not a single document showing it had ever made him a formal offer of the sub-staff post it now claimed he had refused, nor any order rejecting his earlier applications before 2020. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Bank could not manufacture a delay it had itself engineered through years of silence and inaction, and that the rejection letter was the first and only formal response the family had received in five years of waiting.
The Court cut through the Bank's defence with notable precision, observing that the timeline of events told a story the Bank's submissions could not convincingly contradict. No document on record demonstrated that any formal offer of the sub-staff post was ever communicated to the petitioner, nor that any rejection was issued prior to July 27, 2020, making the Bank's "delay" argument structurally hollow. Invoking the Supreme Court's ruling in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, the Court underscored that when a public authority is duty-bound to discharge a function fairly and transparently to advance constitutional goals, its failure to act constitutes a culpable omission that courts cannot overlook. The court was unambiguous on the limits of compassionate appointment jurisprudence, acknowledging that "compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is just a solace to the family of deceased employee", but firmly adding that when a public authority fails to discharge its duties fairly, "the Court has no option except to allow the writ petition."
Accordingly, the rejection order dated July 27, 2020 was quashed and set aside, with the Bank directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment on a suitable post and complete the entire process within 90 days of receiving the court's order.
Case Title: Vibhorgolash Vs. Union Of India and Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5025/2021
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Ashish Shrivastava
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
