Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Single Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh set aside a one-line communication by Punjab National Bank rejecting a deceased employee’s son’s request for compassionate appointment and sent the matter back for fresh consideration within eight weeks. The dispute concerned the bank’s refusal without recorded reasons, despite an application made after the employee died in service and subsequent completion of required formalities. The Court said “compassion” must be understood as human sympathy and kindness and noted that Article 51-A(g) informs how authorities should approach such claims in line with the purpose of the 1974 Uttar Pradesh dependent-employment framework.

The petition was filed challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Sitapur, declining the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment without assigning reasons. The petitioner’s father, a bank employee who had joined service in 1982, died in harness on 04.08.2016, leaving behind legal heirs including the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother submitted an application on 04.08.2018 seeking appointment for her son, mentioning that he had passed the Intermediate examination and was pursuing graduation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Flags Pendency in NIA Cases; Issues Notice To Chief Secretaries Of 17 States/UTs

The bank issued a letter dated 27.08.2018 directing completion of formalities, which were complied with. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, the office was shifted and a fresh application was sought and submitted on 27.01.2021. The petitioner contended that the initial application was within the prescribed period and that the rejection order lacked reasons. The respondent bank contended that the 2018 letter sought future appointment and that the 2021 application was beyond limitation under the applicable Rules governing compassionate appointment.

The Court observed that “two things are undisputed, firstly that the present petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased employee, who was regularly working in the respondent bank, and secondly, that the letter dated 04.08.2018 was received in the office of the bank.”

It recorded that “after the aforesaid letter was given, the bank wrote a letter on 27.08.2018, to the mother of the petitioner, directing her to fulfill the formalities regarding the appointment and the same was completed as per the instructions.”

The Court stated that “it is not the case of the bank that the petitioner did not possess, such qualification, for which there was no job available in the bank,” and noted that the bank had sought completion of formalities after receiving the 2018 application.

Examining the rejection order, the Court observed: “This Court has also noticed the supplementary affidavit submitted by the respondent bank, wherein it is apparent that the members of the Board of the respondent bank, as per oral deliberation, have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment, and in one line, the rejection order has been passed, which abundantly makes it clear that there is non-application of mind, in passing the impugned order dated 19.09.2023, thus, the order impugned does not stand on its own leg.”

The Court further stated: “The law rendered in case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 also covers the field of the present controversy.”

On the object of compassionate appointment, the Court recorded: “the objective of promulgating of Rules, 1974 is with inherent object to immediately help the family of the deceased government servant, from the financial distress and therefore such claim of appointment may be considered in purview of the scope and object of the rules.” It further stated, “The ‘compassion’ cannot be considered in vacuum, as the same attracts and meant of sympathy, kindness and soft feeling with human sentiments.”

Also Read: Violates The Woman’s Right To Dignity And Privacy Under Article 21: Allahabad High Court Rebukes Advocate Over Character Assassination Of Rape Survivor

The Court directed that “the order dated 19.09.2023, passed by the opposite party no. 2 is unsustainable, therefore it is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the opposite party no. 2, i.e. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, HRD Section, Circle Office, Sitapur, to consider and decide the matter afresh, taking into consideration the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, in the light of the observations made above, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is hereby allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Azmi Yousuf, Alok Kumar Pandey, Shashank Singh, Vinod Kumar Shukla

For the Respondents: Brajendra Amiy, Gaurabh Kumar, Vishwas Saraswat

Case Title: Abhishek Jaiswal v. P.N.B. Head Office Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others

Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC-LKO:5507

Case Number: WRIT - A No. - 8208 of 2024

Bench: Justice Shree Prakash Singh