Kerala High Court
State Bank Of India vs Rajina.S. @ Rajina Sageer Sahib on 7 July, 2025
2025:KER:49289
W.A No.1221 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1221 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.06.2013 IN WPC NO.34576
OF 2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CORPORATE
CENTRE, NARIMAN POINT, MADAN CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021.
2 CHAIRMAN
STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, NARIMAN POINT,
MADAN CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021.
3 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION VI, ZONAL OFFICE, KING'S
WAY, NAGPUR.
4 CHIEF MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, WARDHA BRANCH, J.C.KUMAR, APPA
MARG, WARDHA, MAHARASHTRA.
5 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
2025:KER:49289
W.A No.1221 of 2013
2
BY ADV SHRI.P.GOPAL
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
RAJINA.S. @ RAJINA SAGEER SAHIB
W/O.LATE SAGEER SAHIB, DEEN VILLA, (NEDIYAZHIKAM
PURAYIDOM), KAYYALACKAL, WARD HOUSE NO.80, AI-AMEEN
NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM POST, KOLLAM
TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025, THE COURT ON 07.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49289
W.A No.1221 of 2013
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 06.06.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.34576 of 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed the writ petition taking note of the age of the respondent, the Scheme of the State Bank of India and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court by setting aside the impugned orders Exts.P11, R5(d) and R5(e) and directed the appellants herein to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of that judgment.
2. The appellants 1 to 5 were the respondents in the writ petition whereas the respondent herein was the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent's husband was working in the post of Assistant in Wardha Branch of the 1st appellant-Bank. While on duty, he suddenly collapsed and died on 06.08.2001. The respondent being a qualified lady having post Graduate Degree in Commerce filed an application seeking 2025:KER:49289 W.A No.1221 of 2013 4 appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. That application was rejected. Then the respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd appellant who passed an order on 04.05.2004 (Ext.P11) rejecting her claim for appointment on the premise that she has already obtained terminal benefits and that she is also drawing family pension and therefore her family does not suffer from any penury and therefore she is not entitled to any relief. Being aggrieved, the respondent had filed the writ petition which came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment.
4. Challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal on the ground that, first of all the learned Single Judge erred in straight away directing the appellants to appoint the respondent. It is a settled principle of law that no courts can direct straight away appointments but can only direct to consider the case. In the present case, this being the third round of litigation, earlier on two occasions, vide Exts.R5(d) and R5(e), the case of the respondent was duly considered and rejected on the basis of the directions passed by this Court. Ext.P11 is a very detailed order 2025:KER:49289 W.A No.1221 of 2013 5 which considers each and every aspect as per the policy prevalent at the time of death of the employee.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it is trite law that the compassionate appointment is carved out as exception to general law. Two well recognised contingencies for grant of compassionate appointment are: (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service; (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner. [See V. Sivamurthy v. State Of A.P. [(2008) 13 SCC 730].
6. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Managing Director M.P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company and others v. Ashiq Shah and another [2021(3) MPLJ, 532] has held as under:-
"[9] It is trite that the basic purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. The appointment cannot be directed to be given after 2025:KER:49289 W.A No.1221 of 2013 6 more than two decades. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate becomes major after number of years. In (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Apex Court opined as under:-
"3...this Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief." (emphasis supplied).
2025:KER:49289
W.A No.1221 of 2013
7
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others [(1994) 4 SCC 138], in para 6 has held as under:-
"For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over".
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. [(2009) 6 SCC 481], has poignantly held as under:-
"12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring 2025:KER:49289 W.A No.1221 of 2013 8 in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service."
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent.
10. Admittedly, the death of the respondent's husband took place in the year 2001. Thereafter, on three occasions, the case for compassionate appointment was considered and rejected lastly as per Ext.P11 which is a very detailed order passed in accordance with the policy prevalent at the time of death of the employee. Learned Single Judge erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate basis since the same could not have been done and only a direction to reconsider could have been passed. However, in the present case, earlier on two occasions, the appellants have already considered the case of the respondent and thereafter rejected. Now after the passage of a long time since the death, the respondent is not eligible for compassionate appointment as such employment is not a vested 2025:KER:49289 W.A No.1221 of 2013 9 right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby set aside.
The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp