[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
N. Shweta vs Central Bank Of India on 30 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14740
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1376 of 2022
N. Shweta D/o Late Shri N. Adi Narayan Aged About 30 Years R/o
Pragati Nagar, Rishali Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai, Tahsil Bhilai,
District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. Central Bank Of India Through The Chairman, Central Bank Of
India, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Pin 400021, District : Mumbai,
Maharashtra
2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India, Branch Raipur, Main
Branch Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Krishakumar Dixit, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
30.3.2026
1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following
relief(s):-
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the
case of deceased father of petitioner relating to
his compassionate appointment.
10.2 Any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit to grant in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father,
namely, N. Adi Narayan who was working on the post of Manager
under respondent-Bank died in harness on 9.3.2012. He further
submits that applications were moved by the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities on
5.8.2012, 7.5.2013, 10.7.2014, 10.10.2015, 12.12.2016, 8.3.2017
and 14.12.2021 but till date, those applications have not been
considered and decided. He contends that petitioner is entitled to
receive appointment against sanctioned and vacant posts on
compassionate grounds according to the existing policy. He
further contends that direction may be issued by Bank authorities
to take the decision expeditiously.
3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that petitioner's father died on 9.3.2012 and on the said
date, policy ( Ex. R/1 ) dated 13.3.2012 was in existence which
provided for payment of ex - gratia lump sum amount in lieu of
appointment on compassionate grounds. He further submits that
respondent-Bank in pursuance to the policy dated 13.3.2012
made payment of lump-sum ex - gratia amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to
the petitioner on 17.9.2012 which was accepted without any
protest. He contends that applications moved by the petitioner
were never received by the bank authorities and this petition filed
after ten years deserves to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and latches.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
5) Admittedly, father of the petitioner, who was working under the
respondent authorities died in harness on 9.3.2012 and
respondent authorities made payment of lump-sum ex-gratia
amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to the petitioner on 17.9.2012 in lieu of
appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance to the
policy dated 13.3.2012. In para-7 of writ petition, it is contended
that there is no delay in filing this petition. Be that as it may, since
the death of government servant occurred on 9.3.2012, cause of
action arose in the year 2012 whereas the daughter of the
deceased employee has preferred this petition seeking
compassionate appointment in the year 2022, i.e. after delay of
long 10 years.
6) In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms.
Madhuri Maruti Vidhate1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held at
paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under :
"7.Thus, as per the law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions,
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule of appointment in the
public services and is in favour of the
dependents of a deceased dying in harness
and leaving his family in penury and without
any means of livelihood, and in such cases,
out of pure humanitarian consideration taking
into consideration the fact that unless some
1. AIROnLine 2022 SC 471
source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependents
of the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is, thus, to
enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis. The object is not to give such family a
post much less a post held by the deceased.
7.1. Applying the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions
to the facts of the case on hand, to
appoint the respondent now on
compassionate ground shall be
contrary to the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate
ground. The respondent cannot be
said to be dependent on the
deceased employee, i.e., her mother.
Even otherwise, she shall not be
entitled to appointment on
compassionate ground after a
number of years from the death of the
deceased employee.
8. Under the circumstances and in the facts
and circumstances of the case narrated
hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the
High Court have committed serious error in
directing the appellants to appoint the
respondent on compassionate ground. The
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal
confirmed by the High Court directing the
appellants to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground after a number of
years is unsustainable."
7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh 2, it has been
held at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under :
"7. In our view there is more than one
impediment in the way of the respondent.
2. (2019) 6 SCC 774
8. The first is the delay in approaching the
Courts for redressal after a period of 7
years even if he is making
representations. The very objective of
providing immediate amelioration to the
family is extinguished. The second is that
the earlier policy having been abolished
and the new policy having coming into
force, the application has been
considered under the new policy and the
options available were offered to the
respondent who failed to avail of the
same.
9. Our attention has been drawn to the
relevant clause of the new policy which
reads as under:
"The above policy instructions shall be
applicable from the date of issue of
instructions. The cases, where
compassionate employment has not been
given due to discontinuance of the earlier
policy since 4/2002, shall also be
considered and requisite relief, in lieu
compassionate employment, shall be
granted as per above policy instructions."
8) Furthermore, the applications moved by the petitioner do not
contain any mark of receipt and petitioner has not placed any
postal receipt on record to establish that applications were moved
before respondent authorities. In the present case, petitioner's
father died on 9.3.2012 and this petition has been filed on
17.2.2022. The very object of providing compassionate
appointment is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the
relevant time and same has been achieved as the family has
already survived for such a long period. Further, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has ruled that compassionate
appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to
families who have experienced sudden hardship, therefore, I do
not find any good ground to interfere into the matter.
9) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
