Standard Of Family’s Indigence For Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Equated With ‘Beggary’ Under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Bank’s Orders Rejecting Compassionate Appointment
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali set aside the bank’s orders refusing compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee and remanded the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration within four weeks. The case concerns denial of employment assistance on the ground that the bereaved family was allegedly not indigent, despite medical debts, recoveries from terminal dues and absence of independent livelihood. The Court held that the technical definition of an indigent person in Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure—referring to a person without sufficient means to pay court fees and not entitled to property exceeding one thousand rupees in value—cannot be applied mechanically to compassionate appointment, as this would make the scheme practically unattainable for affected families.
A dependent son of a deceased Assistant Manager of the respondent bank filed a writ petition challenging refusal of compassionate appointment. The employee died in harness and was the sole earning member of the family. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. By communication dated 01.10.2019, the competent authority rejected the request on the ground that the family was not in indigent or penurious condition and was not eligible for ex gratia payment. The bank also adjusted various outstanding dues from the gratuity. The petitioner’s mother then submitted a representation stating that substantial loans had been taken for medical treatment, that little remained after clearing dues and that the family had no house or independent livelihood apart from the unemployed petitioner, and sought reconsideration. This representation was rejected on 07.03.2020.
Also Read: Letter Of Intent (LoI) A Promise In Embryo; No Vested Right Until Preconditions Met : Supreme Court
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 alleging that these decisions violated Articles 14, 16 and 300-A by disregarding the family’s liabilities and financial position. The respondents relied on the Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds and submitted that, after considering the terminal benefits, family pension and the petitioner’s age and qualifications, the family was not found to be indigent. The judgment also notes the definition of “indigent person” under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court recorded that the core issue was “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’.”
It stated that the term “indigent” denotes “a state of extreme deprivation, lacking the bare means of subsistence, or being unable to maintain oneself without assistance.” The Court observed that the technical definition under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC cannot be “transposed mechanically into the domain of compassionate appointment” because the scheme is intended “to alleviate sudden penury arising from untimely death of a breadwinner.”
The Court recorded that adopting the CPC definition would lead to “absurd and self-defeating” consequences, since “…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,”
Referring to Rule 5 of the Scheme, the Court stated that “indigence… cannot be interpreted in a vacuum… the Scheme contemplates financial distress resulting from sudden cessation of income, not abject poverty akin to beggary.” The rejection order, it observed, imposed “an unrealistically high threshold of indigence.”
The Court further recorded that Rule 10 acknowledges that “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.” It stated that this provision negates the respondents’ assumption that strict indigence must first be established.
On the factual record, the Court stated that the deceased employee “was in prolonged medical treatment for nearly four years, compelling the family to incur substantial debts” and that “a large portion of the terminal benefits… stood consumed by mandatory recoveries.” It noted that the family did not own a house, resided on rent, and that the petitioner remained unemployed.
The Court recorded that reliance on terminal dues was misplaced because such benefits “cannot be treated as perennial income, nor can they be used as a rigid metric to deny relief,” especially when much of those dues were absorbed by liabilities and medical expenses.
It observed that the impugned orders suffered from “stereotyped reasoning, absence of contextual analysis, and an excessively narrow approach.”
The Court concluded that the respondents had “misconstrued the term ‘indigent’, adopted a rigid and flawed standard, and failed to appreciate that the real test… is whether the family faces immediate hardship due to the cessation of income.”
The Court stated that the writ petition was allowed and that “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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dilshad Sherani
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Vyas; Mr. Jagdish Vyas
Case Title: Harjeet Singh v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:50098
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8162/2020
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali
