Bombay High Court
Pankaj S/O Shivnath Nikhar vs Union Of India, Thr. Secretary, Finance ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:3093-DB
1 wp8383.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.8383/2023
Pankaj S/o Shivnath Nikhar
Aged 31 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o Plot No.43, Middle Ring Road,
Gangavihar Colony, Nandanvan,
Nagpur 440 009. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Union of India,
through its Secretary,
Finance Department, Vitta Mantralaya,
Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director
Canara Bank, 112, J C Road,
Bengaluru 560 002 (Karnataka).
3. Assistant General Manager,
Canara Bank, HRM Section,
Circle Office Shivaji Road,
Near Mangala Talkies, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune 411 005.
4. Senior Branch Manager,
Canara Bank, Gandhi Bagh
Main Branch, Sardakunj, 84,
Central Avenue, Sewasadan Chowk,
Gandhibagh, Nagpur 440 018 ... Respondents
2 wp8383.2023
-----------------
Mr. M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajendra M. Fating,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.V. Navlani, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 26.3.2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is denied
appointment on compassionate ground.
3. The father of the petitioner Mr. Shivnath Ghuvaji
Nikhar was appointed as a 'Clerk' with the Syndicate Bank on
1.12.1983 and due to pandemic of Covid-19 he died in harness on
2.5.2021.
4. The petitioner submitted an application dated
6.7.2021 to the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Pune
3 wp8383.2023
seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said
application was forwarded to respondent No.4 - Senior Branch
Manager, Canara Bank, Gandhibagh Branch, Nagpur on the very
same day.
5. Respondent No.3-Assistant Manager, Canara Bank,
Pune, kept the matter pending for a period of two years. The
Syndicate Bank was amalgamated/merged with Canara Bank on
4.3.2020. During this time, the policy of the Canara Bank
governed the appointments on compassionate ground.
6. Clause 6 of the policy of Canara Bank reads as under:-
"6. Eligibility
6.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate
assistance for relief from financial destitution; and
6.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment
should be eligible and suitable for the post in all
respects under the provisions of the relevant
Recruitment Rules."
4 wp8383.2023
7. On bare perusal of clause 6 of the policy of Canara
Bank, on the basis of which the appointments on compassionate
ground are to be made, it appears that there is no mention of the
requirement that the total income of the family from all sources
must be below Rs.35,000/- (Thirty Five Thousand) which
condition applies to the eligibility criteria of the Syndicate Bank.
Here, in case of Canara Bank the family must be indigent and in
need of immediate financial assistance along with the fulfilment
of the relevant qualification of the applicant.
8. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted
that after deducting total liabilities of Rs.62,01,208/- from the
gross benefits received of Rs.53,19,987/- a liability of
Rs.8,81,221/- was balance against the petitioner. Therefore, it is
explicitly clear that financial condition of the petitioner is not
satisfactory. He further contended that the petitioner is eligible
for any post in clerical cadre, he being a post graduate i.e. M.Sc. in
5 wp8383.2023
Chemistry and overall income of his family including the family
pension was Rs.24,802/- at the time of application.
9. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.3512/2022
(Ashwin Gourishankar Kokodde V/s. Union of India and others)
delivered on 26.4.2023 wherein in para 22 it is held that since the
claim for compassionate appointment shall be considered on the
touchstone of the clause 6 of Unified policy of Canara Bank
unless the person seeking it is otherwise ineligible to hold the
post, the appointment order of the said person shall be issued
within the next eight weeks.
10. The main contention of the petitioner is that both the
brothers of petitioner are living separately with their families
abroad and they are not rendering any financial assistance to the
petitioner and his family.
6 wp8383.2023
11. Learned advocate for the respondents claimed that the
total outstanding liability from loans and advances by the
deceased employee was Rs.18,95,011.83/- after adjusting the
liabilities. The mother of the petitioner was sanctioned monthly
pension of Rs.51,260/-. He further submitted that two brothers
of the petitioner are working abroad and earning $4,704.80 (for
fifteen days) and $1,177.08 (for fifteen days). Therefore, the
competent authority arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner
is not indigent and he does not deserve any immediate financial
assistance since there were no mitigating factors to consider the
request for appointment on compassionate ground of the
petitioner.
12. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly relied
on the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another V/s. Shashi
Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 in which the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as under:-
".....receipt of family pension would be one of the
criteria which would be taken into consideration in
7 wp8383.2023
determining as to whether the family of the deceased
employee is in indigent circumstances."
13. It is the argument of learned Advocate for the
respondents that the peculiar facts and circumstances in the case
of Ashwin Gourishankar Kokodde (supra) relied upon by the
petitioner will not be applicable in the present matter since in the
aforesaid case the employee died before the amalgamation of the
Banks when the rules of policy of the Syndicate Bank were
prevalent at the time of appointment on compassionate ground.
While in the case in hand, the father of the petitioner has died
after the amalgamation of the Banks. Therefore, the competent
authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner.
14. We have heard learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned
Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and we have also gone
through the record.
8 wp8383.2023
15. Rejection of the application of petitioner by the
Canara Bank seeking the appointment on compassionate ground
is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
16. On a perusal of the impugned communication, it is
clear that Canara Bank concluded that there was no indigent
circumstances and the case of the petitioner did not fall within the
parameters of its policy and that the financial condition of the
family of petitioner is satisfactory. There are no mitigating factors
to consider the request for compassionate appointment of the
petitioner.
17. The respondents have filed their affidavits.
According to the respondents two sons of the deceased are
working abroad and earning $ 4704.80 for 15 days and $
1177.08 for 15 days. The family of the petitioner is receiving
monthly family pension of Rs.51,260/- and that the petitioner has
completed post graduation, is a major and capable of earning.
9 wp8383.2023
The authority has not found any indigent ground necessitating
immediate assistance or relief for financial restitution. It appears
that there is a conflict between the Policies which would be
applicable to the father of the petitioner after amalgamation of
Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank.
18. The only significant difference in policy of Syndicate
Bank and Canara Bank is that the policy of Canara Bank
mentions "indigent person" whereas the policy of Syndicate Bank
mentions the limit of Rs.35,000/- per month income of the
family from all sources to be the main basis for the appointment
on compassionate ground with other relevant conditions. The
financial benefits received by the family of the deceased are
mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondents. According to
respondents, though the family of the petitioner had spent money
on the medical treatment of the deceased, the entire amount was
recovered as they had a medical insurance and said amount was
paid by the insurance company. One brother of the petitioner is
10 wp8383.2023
staying at New Jersy in the U.S.A. and the other brother is also
working with a multi-national company abroad. Hence the
contention of the petitioner that his family earns only Rs.24,802/
per month is not correct and is a misleading statement.
19. The petitioner has stated in his pleadings that the
brothers who are staying abroad lost their jobs during Covid and
they are not supporting the petitioner and his mother financially
as they have a separate family.
20. Instead of going into the reasoning given by Canara
Bank for denying the compassionate appointment to the
petitioner, it is a fact that though the retiral benefits are paid to
the family of the deceased, it can neither be a decisive factor nor
the income of the brothers who are staying abroad can be
considered for deciding the claim of the petitioner on
compassionate ground.
11 wp8383.2023
21. The main ground for the consideration of claim of the
petitioner is whether the claim of compassionate appointment is
required to be addressed on the basis of the policy of Syndicate
Bank which was holding the field at the relevant time.
22. Though the father of the petitioner died after
amalgamation of the Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank, as per
notification dated 4.3.2020 it is specifically clarified that Board of
Transferee Bank shall ensure that "the interest of all transferring
employees and officers of Transferor Bank are protected". Clause
14 and 15 further clarifies this position. Because of merger of
Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank the services of the petitioner's
father have been transferred into Canara Bank from the year 2020
and he was working with respondent No.4 Canara Bank,
Gandhibagh, Nagpur. The service conditions of the father of
petitioner was, however, protected under the Scheme of
Amalgamation. He died in harness on 2.5.2021. In accordance
with the policy of Syndicate Bank wherein the service of the
12 wp8383.2023
petitioner was of substantive nature and all service conditions
were applicable in accordance with the policy framed by
Syndicate Bank so also policy framed by the Canara Bank was
prevalent at the time of death of father of the petitioner, the
petitioner comes within the parameters of Canara Bank. Clause
13 of the Amalgamation of Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank
2020 published vide notification dated 4.3.2020 specifically
clarifies the same. The condition subject to which the Syndicate
Bank was amalgamated into Canara Bank protects the service
conditions of the employees of the erstwhile Syndicate Bank.
The protection of the service conditions of employees of the
erstwhile Bank ipso facto renders the stand of the Canara Bank
unjustified and more particularly the reliance placed on the policy
of the Canara Bank is untenable. In our considered view the
petition succeeds on the short ground of the touchstone of clause
6 of the policy of Syndicate Bank under which the service
conditions of the deceased were governed. For this purpose,
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the
13 wp8383.2023
judgment of this Court in Ashwin Gourishankar Kokodde (supra)
wherein the same issue is dealt with.
23. Learned Advocate for the respondents has stated that
the observations in said petition are not applicable to this case as
at the time of death, the deceased was working in the Canara
Bank and there was amalgamation even before his death.
24. On a perusal of the Amalgamation Scheme,
particularly clauses 13 and 14 of the Notification dated 4.3.2020,
it is clear that the services of the father of petitioner were
governed by the policy of Syndicate Bank. Moreover, the Canara
Bank was also having the same policy for compassionate
appointment. Only criteria of the income of Rs.35,000/- per
month from all sources is not specifically mentioned in the policy
of the Canara Bank. Though the brothers of the petitioner are
doing job abroad, they are not financially supporting the
petitioner and his mother. Considering the income of the mother
14 wp8383.2023
of petitioner i.e. the family pension which was Rs.24,802/- at the
time of filing of application, the petitioner is entitled for the relief
of compassionate appointment.
25. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside the
impugned communication dated 18.9.2023.
We further direct the respondents that the claim of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment shall be considered
on the touchstone of clause 6 of the Unified Policy and unless the
petitioner is otherwise found ineligible to hold the post, the
appointment order shall be issued to the petitioner within next 8
weeks from the date of production of this judgment and order.
Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/03/2025 18:49:09
