The Supreme Court of India via one of its recent judgements have clarified that being just and fair isn't substitute for being kind and compassionate.  

The Apex Court though 'reluctantly' set aside a High Court order which directed a bank to consider an application seeking compassionate appointment filed by the son of its deceased employee and remarked, "Sympathy alone cannot give a remedy."

CASE BACKDROP

An application was filed on behalf of Jagdish Raj's son who worked as Clerk-cum-Shroff in the Indian Bank till death seeking compassionate employment on account of his demise. The relevant scheme provided that if the dependents opted for payment of gratuity for the term of service of the employee who died while in service, no compassionate appointment could be granted.

As in this case, the dependents had availed the benefit of gratuity, the bank thus rejected the application.

The applicant then went to Punjab and Haryana High Court which allowed the application and directed the bank to pay ₹2 lakh ex gratia payment and as well consider the application for compassionate appointment.

Aggrieved by the said order, the bank then approached the Apex Court and contended that, having taken the full amount of gratuity, the option of compassionate appointment really wasn't available to the dependents of Jagdish Raj.

The Apex Court then took notice of the relief scheme and thus held that going by the norms of it, the dependant cannot claim benefits under it.

The bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said:

It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of the appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away. An aspect examined by this judgment is as to whether a claim for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been emphatically in the negative. It has also been observed that the grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to consider as to what are the provisions made in the scheme for such compassionate appointment.

The Top Court further remarked that it's not for the Courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in judicial review.

The bench thus set aside the High Court's order and observed:

"We may have sympathy with the respondents about the predicament they faced on the demise of Shri Jagdish Raj, but then sympathy alone cannot give remedy to the respondents, more so when the relevant benefits available to the respondents have been granted by the appellant-Bank and when respondent No.1, herself, was in employment having monthly income above the benchmark. We have, thus, no option but to reluctantly set aside the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition originally filed by the respondents"

The judgement has been passed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph on 08-01-2020.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :