Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harjeet Singh vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 24 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:50098]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8162/2020
Harjeet Singh S/o Late Shri Darshan Singh, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of D-17, Vaishali Bagh, Ward No. 25, Near V.k.
City, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Corporate Office, Plot No. 5,
2Nd Floor, Institutional Area, Sector- 32, Gurgaon
(Harayan) Through Its General Manager.
2. Dy. General Manager, Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Circle
Office First Floor, 173-174, G-Block, Sukharia Circle, Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilshad Sherani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Vyas
Mr. Jagdish Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 24/11/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON : 13/11/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the action of
the respondents in denying compassionate appointment to
the dependent of the deceased employee, alleging violation
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (2 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders dated
01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2
suffer from arbitrariness and are contrary to the principles of
natural justice, fair play and equity.
2. That the father of the petitioner, Shri Darshan Singh, was
serving as an Assistant Manager in the respondent bank and
expired on 17.01.2020 during service due to ailment, as
evidenced by the identity card, certificate issued by Jan Seva
Hospital dated 22.02.2019, and death certificate dated
26.01.2019 (Annexure-1); that since the deceased employee
was the sole earning member and the petitioner's entire
family was dependent on his income, the petitioner, who
possesses a B.A. degree, submitted an application in the
prescribed proforma for compassionate appointment along
with requisite documents (Annexure-4); that respondent
No.2, vide communication dated 01.10.2019, informed that
the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was
considered but not acceded to by the competent authority on
the ground that the family was not found to be in indigent or
penurious condition and further stated that the legal heirs of
the deceased were not eligible for ex-gratia payment in lieu
of compassionate appointment (Annexure-5); that it is also
on record that the respondent bank recovered from the
gratuity dues of the deceased an amount of Rs. 6,99,921.26
towards OD Limit, Rs. 1,27,846/- and Rs. 24,265/- towards
vehicle loans, and Rs. 6,253/- towards festival loan, as
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (3 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
reflected in the family pension document (Annexure-6); that
thereafter, the petitioner's mother, Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur,
submitted a representation dated 03.10.2019 before
respondent No.2 asserting that the aforesaid recoveries had
been made from the gratuity dues, and further stating that
the family had also taken personal loans of Rs. 5,00,000/-
from Bajaj Finance, Rs. 2,50,000/- from Muthoot Finance,
and Rs. 7-8 lakhs from the market for the treatment of the
deceased employee, and after clearing all dues, nothing
remained with them, and that they neither owned a house
nor had any source of livelihood except the unemployed
petitioner, therefore seeking reconsideration of the request
for compassionate appointment (Annexure-7); that
respondent No.2, however, vide communication dated
07.03.2020, reiterated that the competent authority did not
find the family to be in indigent or penurious condition and
thus did not accept the request (Annexure-8); and that
being aggrieved by the communications dated 01.10.2019
and 07.03.2020, the petitioner has preferred the present
writ petition challenging the same.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2
has committed a grave error apparent on the face of record
by rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment vide orders dated 01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020.
It is urged that despite the deceased employee Shri Darshan
Singh being the sole earning member, the respondents
wrongly concluded that the family was not in indigent
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (4 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
circumstances. The retiral benefits cited by the respondents
cannot justify rejection, as substantial amounts were
deducted towards various bank loans, personal loans and
medical expenses, leaving the family with no subsistence;
the family is living in a rented house and the petitioner is
unemployed. It is argued that the impugned action is
arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the
Constitution, and defeats the very object of compassionate
appointment meant to alleviate immediate financial distress.
Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the
respondents be directed to grant compassionate
appointment to the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the respondents submits that although the
petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on
19.03.2019, the case was examined strictly under the
Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds
approved by the erstwhile OBC with effect from 05.08.2014.
The application was placed before the Competent
Committee, which, after considering all relevant factors,
including the deceased employee's age and length of service
(over 37 years), substantial terminal benefits received by the
family amounting to approximately ₹34.66 lakhs, ongoing
family pension, absence of dependent daughters, and the
petitioner's age, marital status, and educational background
found that the family was not in indigent or penurious
condition to qualify under the Scheme. It is submitted that
the petitioner has concealed material facts, and merely
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (5 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
projecting liabilities cannot confer eligibility. The request was
therefore rightly rejected on 01.10.2019 and again upon
reconsideration on 07.03.2020. Since compassionate
appointment is not a vested or enforceable right and can be
granted only in cases of genuine financial distress, the
impugned orders call for no interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
5. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
6. This Court finds it imperative to first delineate the core issue
arising for determination, whether the respondents were
justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment solely on the ground that the family was "not
indigent or penurious", notwithstanding the undisputed facts
that (i) the deceased employee was the sole breadwinner, (ii)
he remained under medical treatment for nearly four years
prior to his death, (iii) substantial recoveries were made
from the terminal dues, (iv) the family had incurred heavy
liabilities to meet medical expenses, and (v) the family
continues to reside in a rented accommodation without any
independent source of subsistence.
7. Before adverting to the legality of the impugned orders, it is
apposite to elucidate the expression "indigent", as the entire
edifice of the rejection rests upon this singular term.
Etymologically, "indigent" connotes a state of extreme
deprivation, lacking the bare means of subsistence, or being
unable to maintain oneself without assistance.
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (6 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
Jurisprudentially, the expression has acquired a narrow and
technical meaning under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, where an indigent person is defined as one
who is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the requisite
court fee and who is not entitled to property worth one
thousand rupees. This Court emphasises that this definition,
essentially crafted for regulating access to civil justice,
cannot be transposed mechanically into the domain of
compassionate appointment, which is a socio-welfare
measure intended to alleviate sudden penury arising from
untimely death of a breadwinner.
8. Indeed, if the restrictive and literal connotation of "indigent"
under Order XXXIII CPC is imported into employment
jurisprudence, the consequences would be absurd and self-
defeating. By its very nature, no person engaged in public or
private employment, who receives a regular salary,
allowances, statutory benefits or retiral dues can ever fall
within such an extreme definition of indigence that equates
to beggary or absolute pauperism. Extending this standard
posthumously to the dependents of a deceased government
employee is wholly unrealistic, for no class of salaried
employees could ever satisfy such a test. If such an
interpretation is adopted, compassionate appointment would
stand reduced to an illusory promise, creating a dichotomy
wherein the Scheme ostensibly aims to provide immediate
relief, yet imposes a threshold that no eligible family can
practically meet. This dual standard renders the very object
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (7 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
of compassionate appointment redundant. Thus, adopting
"indigence simpliciter" as the determinative yardstick would
render the Scheme otiose, and the categorical dismissal of
the petitioner's claim merely on the ipse dixit that the
"family is not indigent" appears, on the face of it, unsound,
perfunctory and legally untenable.
9. The dichotomy becomes further manifest when the "Scheme
for Compassionate Appointment" itself is examined. Rule 5,
titled Eligibility, provides:
"5.1. The family is indigent and deserves immediate
assistance for relief from financial destitution.
5.2. The applicant for compassionate appointment should be
eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the
relevant Recruitment Rules."
10. A conjoint reading reveals that "indigence" under the
Scheme cannot be interpreted in a vacuum or in the hyper-
technical manner adopted in civil proceedings. Rather, the
Scheme contemplates financial distress resulting from
sudden cessation of income, not abject poverty akin to
beggary. The very objective of compassionate appointment is
to prevent destitution, not to wait till destitution is
conclusively established. The rejection order, by insisting
upon an unrealistically high threshold of indigence, defeats
the benevolent purpose underlying Rule 5.
11. Even more significantly, Rule 10 of the Scheme
incorporates an explicit legislative recognition that existence
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (8 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
of an earning member does not automatically disqualify the
family. Rule 10 reads:
"10.1. In deserving cases, even when there is already an
earning member in the family, a dependent family member
shall be considered for compassionate appointment ...
having regard to the number of dependents, assets and
liabilities left by the employee...
10.2. If the earning member is not supporting the family,
extreme caution shall be exercised in ascertaining economic
distress to ensure that the facility is not circumvented."
12. Thus, the Scheme itself proceeds on the assumption
that a family may still be in financial distress despite having
an earning member. Consequently, the very architecture of
Rule 10 negates the respondents' premise that the
petitioner's family must first prove its indigence in the strict
sense. If compassionate appointment can be granted even
where an earning member exists, then rejection on the basis
that the family is "not indigent" becomes logically incoherent
and legally specious.
13. In the present case, the material placed on record
indicates that the deceased employee was in prolonged
medical treatment for nearly four years, compelling the
family to incur substantial debts from formal lenders as well
as private sources. A large portion of the terminal benefits,
ordinarily considered a buffer against financial hardship,
stood consumed by mandatory recoveries towards overdraft,
vehicle loan, festival loan and other dues. The family
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (9 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
admittedly does not own a house, resides on rent, and its
only adult dependent (the petitioner) remains unemployed.
These circumstances, taken cumulatively, demonstrate not
merely financial strain but a pattern of precipitated financial
vulnerability, directly attributable to the untimely demise of
the breadwinner.
14. The respondents' reliance on the quantum of terminal
dues, bereft of context, is misplaced. The law is settled that
terminal benefits cannot be treated as perennial income, nor
can they be used as a rigid metric to deny relief, particularly
when liabilities, medical expenses, and compulsive
recoveries have consumed most of such benefits. If terminal
dues, pension, or gratuity payments are treated as a source
of livelihood of the family, and if such factors are made
determinative, then no family of any public servant would
ever qualify for compassionate appointment, since every
such family invariably receives some amount towards ex-
gratia, pension, insurance, and similar statutory dues. The
mechanical conclusion that the family "is not indigent",
without a holistic appreciation of liabilities, household
expenses, medical debt and lack of sustained income,
reflects a non-application of mind and is inconsistent with
the humanitarian objective of compassionate appointment.
15. Moreover, compassion cannot be reduced to an exercise
in arithmetic. The constitutional requirement of fairness,
flowing from Articles 14, 16 and 300-A--obligates the
authority to examine whether the family is reasonably able
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (10 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
to sustain itself after the sudden loss of the breadwinner. The
impugned orders, however, suffer from stereotyped
reasoning, absence of contextual analysis, and an
excessively narrow approach inconsistent with the protective
purpose of the Scheme.
16. This Court is therefore constrained to observe that the
respondents have misconstrued the term "indigent", adopted
a rigid and flawed standard, and failed to appreciate that the
real test under compassionate appointment is not whether
the family has become destitute, but whether the dependent
was financially reliant on the deceased employee and
whether the family faces immediate hardship due to the
cessation of his income. The Scheme consciously aims at
preventing "starvation-like" conditions, not at waiting for
such conditions to materialise.
17. In light of the above analysis, this Court finds that the
impugned communications dated 01.10.2019 and
07.03.2020 are unsustainable, having been passed on an
erroneous premise, bereft of proper inquiry into liabilities,
and inconsistent with the spirit of the Scheme.
18. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The
impugned orders dated 01.10.2019 and 07.03.2020 passed
by Respondent No. 2 are hereby set aside. The matter is
remanded to the competent authority to reconsider the
petitioner's case afresh, strictly in accordance with the
governing Scheme, keeping in view the correct legal
parameters for determining "indigence", including the
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50098] (11 of 11) [CW-8162/2020]
financial liabilities of the family, the prolonged illness of the
deceased employee, the recoveries effected from terminal
dues, and the overarching objective of compassionate
appointment, which is to provide immediate succour to a
family in financial destitution following the sudden demise of
the sole earning member. While undertaking this exercise,
the competent authority shall also examine whether the
applicant is eligible and suitable for the post in all respects
under the relevant Recruitment Rules. These aspects shall be
duly considered while passing a fresh, reasoned order.
19. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this judgment and upon finding the
petitioner eligible for compassionate appointment, an order
to that effect shall be passed forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
196-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 03:07:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
