Safiya Malik

In a judgment delivered on March 26, 2025, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur, comprising Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi, ruled in favour of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The court directed that the petitioner be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with Clause 6 of the Unified Policy, setting aside the bank's prior rejection.

The court noted that despite amalgamation of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank, the service conditions of the employees of the erstwhile Syndicate Bank were to be protected. It further held that unless the petitioner was otherwise found ineligible, an appointment order must be issued within eight weeks from the date of production of the judgment.

Also Read: “‘No Deep and Pervasive Control’: Supreme Court Holds ICSSR Not Liable for CRRID Salaries, Says Grants Cannot Be Claimed ‘As a Matter of Right’”

The petitioner, aged 31, approached the court after being denied appointment on compassionate grounds by Canara Bank following the death of his father, Mr. Shivnath Ghuvaji Nikhar, who had served as a Clerk with Syndicate Bank since December 1, 1983. Mr. Nikhar died in harness on May 2, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on July 6, 2021, which was forwarded to the Senior Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Gandhibagh Branch, Nagpur, on the same day. The bank delayed action on the application for two years. During this period, the policy of Canara Bank governed appointments on compassionate grounds, following the merger of Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank on March 4, 2020.

Clause 6 of the Canara Bank policy states:

"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."

The petitioner contended that he was eligible for a clerical post, being a postgraduate in Chemistry, and that his family was financially distressed. After deducting liabilities of Rs.62,01,208 from the gross benefits of Rs.53,19,987, a deficit of Rs.8,81,221 remained. His family's income, including pension, was Rs.24,802 per month at the time of application.

Relying on the judgment in Ashwin Gourishankar Kokodde v. Union of India, the petitioner argued that the compassionate appointment should be assessed based on Clause 6 of the Canara Bank policy.

Respondents contested the claim, stating that the total outstanding loan liability was Rs.18,95,011.83. They argued that the petitioner's mother was receiving a pension of Rs.51,260 per month, and that the petitioner's two brothers were employed abroad, earning $4,704.80 and $1,177.08 for fifteen days each, suggesting that the family was not indigent. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgement in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, which held that receipt of family pension could be a criterion in assessing indigent status.

The petitioner, however, asserted that his brothers were not financially supporting him or their mother and had separate families abroad. He claimed they lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court examined the conflicting policies of Syndicate Bank and Canara Bank and found that the Syndicate Bank policy had specified a financial cap of Rs.35,000 per month from all sources, whereas Canara Bank's policy used the term "indigent" without a specific financial threshold.

It stated: "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."

The court observed that Clause 13 of the Amalgamation Scheme mandated protection of service conditions of transferring employees. Thus, "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."

Also Read: “Multiplier Cannot Be Reduced Based on Quantum of Compensation”: Kerala High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation by ₹73.66 Lakhs for Nurse Working Abroad

The Bench held that the petitioner came within the parameters of Clause 6 of the Syndicate Bank policy and stated: "Considering the income of the mother 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."

The court issued the following directive:

"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.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajendra M. Fating, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P.V. Navlani, Advocate; Mr. N.S. Warulkar, Advocate

Case Title: Pankaj S/o Shivnath Nikhar v. Union of India and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-NAG:3093-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No.8383/2023

Bench: Justice Nitin W. Sambre, Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

[Read/Download order]