The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the presence of an earning member in the deceased employee’s family, even if allegedly non-supportive, is a relevant factor in assessing eligibility for compassionate appointment. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma made this observation while dismissing Writ Appeal No. 223 of 2025 filed by Smt. Dukhiya Bai and Gannendra Singh Markam, dependents of a deceased bank employee.
Case Background
The appellants are the wife and son of the late Deendayal Markam, who was employed as a Daftari at Punjab National Bank’s Bhandarpur branch and died in harness on November 14, 2014. Following his death, the appellants submitted a request for compassionate appointment to the bank.
The bank rejected the application, citing the family’s financial condition as stable and not indigent, based on the fact that one of the deceased’s sons was already employed in government service. Dissatisfied, the appellants filed WPS No. 5333 of 2017 before a Single Judge, which was dismissed on March 6, 2024. The present appeal challenged that decision.
Appellants’ Arguments
Advocate B.P. Rao, appearing for the appellants, contended that the employed son earns a modest salary of ₹10,270 per month and resides separately in a rented house, thus unable to support the family. The appellants’ income was stated to be limited to ₹11,073 per month as family pension, ₹2,000 from agriculture, and ₹2,500 as monthly bank interest from terminal benefits, totaling ₹15,573 per month.
It was argued that mere presence of an earning member should not disqualify the family from being considered for compassionate appointment. The counsel cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Govind Prasad Verma v. LIC of India & Ors, (2005) 10 SCC 289, where it was held that receipt of family pension and terminal benefits alone cannot justify rejection of a compassionate appointment.
The appellants also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors, (1994) 4 SCC 138, which states that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to alleviate sudden financial hardship arising from the death of a breadwinner.
Respondents’ Submission
Counsel for Punjab National Bank, Mr. Sharad Mishra, argued that the decision of the competent authority and the Single Judge was in accordance with law. It was asserted that the appellants were not in a state of financial destitution warranting compassionate employment, and the existence of an earning member in the family was rightly taken into consideration.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Division Bench observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and must be granted only in genuine cases of financial hardship. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that it is not a vested right and should not be granted where the family is not in dire need.
Referring to the findings of the Single Judge, the Bench noted:
“The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis due to the death of the bread-earner.”
The Court further stated:
“To seek employment for one of the members in the family, the scheme stipulates that extreme caution has to be observed. In no case should compassionate appointment be circumvented and misused by asserting that the employed member is not supporting the family.”
The Bench found no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the decision of the Single Judge, and concluded that no interference was warranted.
The writ appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and no costs were imposed.
Citation: WA No. 223 of 2025 | Smt. Dukhiya Bai & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.
