CANARA BANK AND ANR. versus M. MAHESH KUMAR
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 724, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015]9S.C.R. 724 
CANARABANKANDANR. 
v. 
M. MAHESH KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No.260/2008 etc.) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Appointment- Compassionate appointment- Claim for 
- Under compassionate appointment scheme of 1993 of the 
employer-Bank - Rejection of claim by the Bank - During 
pendency of the case for seeking consideration of the claim, 
compassionate appointment scheme replaced with the 
D scheme of'ex-gratia payment' of 2005- Entitlement to the 
claim of compassionate appointment - Held: Claim of 
compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular 
year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme 
that came into force much after the claim - In the present 
E case, cause of action arose when 1993 scheme was in force, 
hence the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 scheme -
The circular whereby 2005 scheme was brought in, being an 
administrative/executive order, cannot have retrospective 
F effect- Claimant's family getting family pension and terminal 
benefits is of no consequence in considering the application 
of compassionate appointment - Direction to Bank to 
consider the application of the claimant as per 1993 scheme. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. TheobjectoftheSchemedatedS.05.1993 · 
vide Circular No.154/1993 for "compassionate 
appointment" is to help dependants of employees of the 
724
CANARA BAN KAND ANR. v. M. MAH ESH KUMAR 
725 
employer-Bank· who die or become totally and A 
permanently disabled while in harness and to overcome 
the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden 
stoppage of the main source of income. The employment 
under the scheme will be considered only if there are 
indigent circumstances necessitating employment to B 
one of the dependants and the deceased employee's 
service record is unblemished. Mere eligibility will not 
vest a right for claiming employment. [Para 9] [732-H; 
733-A-C] 
2. Claim of compassionate appointment under a 
scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light 
of the subsequent scheme that came into force much 
after the claim. In the present case, the cause of action 
c 
to be considered for compassionate appointment arose D 
when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in 
force. Thus, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 
Scher:ne providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular 
dated 14.2.2005 being an administrati.\re or executive 
order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take E 
away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular 
of 1993. [Paras 11and13] [734-G; 738-C-D] 
State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur(2007) 9 SCC 
571: 2007 (2) SCR 101; Bhawani Prasad Sankar vs. Union F 
of India & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 209: 2011 (4) SCR 630 - relied 
on. 
3. The 2005 Scheme providing only for ex-gratia 
payment in lieu of compassionate appointment stands G 
superseded by
the Scheme of 2014 which has revived 
the scheme providing for compassionate appointment. 
As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide 
compassionate 
appointment. 
Under 
these 
circumstances, the appellant-Bank is not justified in H
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A contending that the application for compassionate 
appointment of the respondent cannot be considered 
in view of passage of time. [Para 14] [738-E, F] 
4. The respondent's family getting family pension 
8 and terminal benefits is of no consequence in 
considering the application for compassionate 
appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in 
case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered 
appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of 
c appointment open till the minor attains the age of 
majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal 
benefits is of no consequence. [Para 15] [738-G-H; 739-
A-B] 
0 
BalbirKaur&Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. 
(2000) 6 sec 493: 2000 (3) SCR 1053 - relied on. 
5. The appellant bank is directed to consider the case 
of the respondents for compassionate appointment as 
per the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of death 
E of the concerned employee. [Para 19] [740-F] 
Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 
4 SCC 468; MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 
13 SCC 583: 2013 (10) SCR 1 ; Umesh KumarNagpalvs. 
F State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138: State of Manipur 
vs. Md. Rajaodin (2003) 7 SCC 511: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 
107 Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. 
(2008) 15 SCC 560: 2008 (14) SCR 824and SanjayKumar 
VS. State of Bihar& Ors. (2000) 7 sec 192: 2000 (2) Suppl. 
G SCR 710 - referred to. 
Umesh
Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 
(1994) 4 SCC 138; Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. 
Madhusudan Das & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 560: 2008 (14) 
H SCR 824; Union of India & Anr. vs. B. Kishore (2011) 4 
SCALE 298; State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994)

CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 
727 
4 SCC 448; State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur(2007) A 
9 SCC 571: 2007 (2) SCR 101; State Bankoflndia &Anr. 
vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 - cited. 
Case Law Reference 
(1994) 4 sec 138 
cited 
Para4 
8 
2008 (14). SCR 824 
cited 
Para4 
(2011) 4 SCALE 298 
cited 
Para4 
(1994) 4 sec 448 
cited 
Para4 
c 
2007 (2) SCR 101 
cited 
Para4 
(2010) 11 sec 661 
cited 
Para 4 
D 
(1989) 4 sec 468 
referred to· Para 7 
2013 (10) SCR 1 
referred to 
Para 7 
(1994) 4 sec 138 
referred to 
Para 8 
E 
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 107 
referred to 
Para 8 
2008 (14) SCR 824 
referred to 
Para 8 
2000 ( 2) Suppl. SCR 710 referred to 
Para 8 
F 
. 
2007 (2) SCR 101 
relied on 
Para 11 
2011 (4) SCR 630 
relied on 
Para 12 
2000 (3) SCR 1053 
relied on 
Para 16 
G 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 260 
of2008 . 
.. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2006 High 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1313/2003[8]. H
728 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 266 & 267 of 2008 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Hetu Arora Sethi, 
B Rajeev Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan for the Appellants. 
c 
Dr. K. P. K. Pillay, P.A. NoorMuhamed, V. S. Lakshmi, K. 
Sarada Devi, Naveen R. Nath for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Common question of law falling 
for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the 
dependant family members of the deceased employee of the 
appellant-Canara Bank were entitled to seek compassionate 
D appointment on the basis of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' which 
was passed Vide Circular No.154/1993 w.e.f. 8.05.1993. The 
claim is resisted by the Canara Bank on the ground that the 
financial condition of the family members of the deceased 
employees is good and that the Scheme dated 8. 05.1993 has 
E been replaced with scheme dated 14.02.2005 (H. 0. Circular 
No.35/2005) scrapping the provision of compassionate 
appointment and in lieu thereof introduced the new scheme of 
ex-gratia payment. 
F 
2. In Civil Appeal No.260/2008, the Division Bench of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide its Order dated 
24.08.2006 in WritAppeal f\jo. 1313/2003 (B) titled as Canara 
Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar directed the bank to 
reconsider the claim of the claimant- M. Mahesh Kumar within 
G two morH:hs from the date of order. Further, due to the pendency 
. 
~ 
of SLP against the decision dated 24.08.2006 in
Writ Appeal 
No.1313/2003(B), the Division Bench of the High Court of 
Kerala also disposed off the Writ Appeal Nos.2333/2006 and 
2335/2006 vide common order dated 11.12.2006 and directed 
H the claimants to approach this Court. Assailing the aforesaid
CANARA BANKAND ANR. v. M. MAH ESH KUMAR 
729 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
three decisions of the Division Bench of the Kera la High Court, A 
the appellant-bank has filed the instant appeals. 
3. For convenience, Civil Appeal No.260/2008 is taken 
as a lead case. Brief facts which led to the filing of the appeal 
are as follows:- Respondent applied to the appellant-bank on 
B 
30.11.1998 claiming to be considered for compassionate 
appointment on account of death of his father, a clerk in the 
·appellant-bank who while on duty died on 10.10.1998. 
R~spondent had applied forthe compassionate appointment 
on account of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' with effect from C 
8.05.1993 then in vogue in the_ appellant-bank. The bank vide 
its communication dated 30.06.1999 rejected the claim of the 
respondent on the ground that the respondent's family financial 
position does not show any indigent circumstances warranting 
to provide employment on compassionate ground. The D 
respondent gave his representation to the General Manager 
of the appellant-bank and several other representations for 
reconsideration of his claim; but nothing fruitful happened in 
consideration of respondent's claim for compassionate 
appointment. Thereafter, respondent filed 0. P. No.21630/2002 E 
(.Y) before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam seeking to 
quash the Ext. P4 and direction to the appellant-bank to appoint 
him as per 'Dying in Harness Scheme' then in force in the 
appellant-bank. The learned Single Judge
of the High Court F 
vide judgment dated 30.05.2003 allowed the Original Petition 
of the respondent herein and quashed Ext.P4 and directed 
the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent 
for appointment in accordance with law within two months from 
the date of receipt of copy of judgment. Appellant-bank assailed G 
the decision of the l~arned Single Judge in Writ Appeal 
No.1313/2003 (B) and the Division Bench upholding the order 
of the Single Judge dismissed the writ appeal. The appellant-
bank has filed this appeal assailing the correctness of the 
H
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
above order. 
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank contended that 
consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is 
contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and 
B 
is only in the nature of concession and, therefore, it does. not 
create a vested right in favour of the ciaimanUrespondent. It. 
was submitted that 'Dying in Harness Scheme' is a non-
statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it 
does not create a vested right in favour of the claiman.U 
C 
respondent to be enforced through a writ of mandamus. It was 
further submitted that _the compassionate appointment is 
justified when it is granted to provide immediate succour to 
the deceased-employee's dependants and cannot be granted 
on the passage of time and in all these cases, the concerned 
D employee died about two decades ago and, therefore, the High 
Court was not justified in directing the appellant-bank to . 
reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate 
appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel for 
the appellant relied upon number of judgments: Umesh Kumar 
E Nagpal vs. State of Haryana And Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138; 
Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors.,. 
(2008) 15 SCC 560; Union of India & Anr. vs. B. Kishore, 
(2011) 4 SCALE 298; State ofHaryana vs. Naresh Kumar 
F 
Bali, (1994) 4 SCC 448; State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal 
Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 and State Bank of
India & Anr. v. Raj 
Kumar, (2010) 11sec661. 
5. Per contra, learned counsel forthe respondent contends 
that the order was passed by the appellant-bank without 
G considering the facts that i~ size of the respondent's family/ 
employment status of his family members and sources of their 
income, liabilities and expenses and the decision of the bank 
rejecting the case of the respondent for compassionate 
H appointment is arbitrary. Placing reliance upon Jaspal Kaur's 
case (supra) and other decisions, it ·vvas submitted that the 
•
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 
731 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
case of the respondent ought to have been considered in the A 
light of the Scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme' which was 
then in vogue. The respondent averred that the payment of 
terminal benefits cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting 
employmE'.nt under the 'Dying in Harness Scheme'. 
6 .. We have considered the rival contentions of both the 
parties and perused the impugned judgments and the material. 
on record. 
B 
7. Law with regard to employment on compassionate c 
ground for dependant of a dece~sed employee is well settled. · 
In Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 4 
SCC 468, this Court held as thus: 
"9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally D 
that in all claims for appointment on compassionate 
grounds, there should not be any delay in 
appointment. The purpose of providing 
appointment on compassionate ground is to 
mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread E 
earner in the family. Such appointment should; 
therefore, be provided imn:iediately to redeem the 
family in distress. It is improper to keep such case 
pending for years. If there is no suitable post for 
appointment supernumerary post should be F 
created to accommodate the applicant." 
The settled law which has been reiterated in various cases 
has been succinctly elucidated in MGB Gramin. Bank vs. 
Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, wherein it was G 
observed that compassionate appointment cannot
be granted 
as of right and the application to be decided as expeditiously 
as possible and held as under:-
"6. Every appointment to public office must be made H 
by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An 
exception by providing employment on 
compassionate grounds has been carved out in 
order to remove the financial constraints on the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. 
Mere death of a government employee in harness 
does not entitle the family to claim compassionate 
employment. The competent authority has to 
examine the financial condition of the family of the 
deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied 
that without providing employment, the family will 
not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be 
offered to the eligible member of the family. More 
so, the person claiming such appointment must 
possess required eligibility for the post. The 
consistent view that has been taken by the Court 
is that compassionate employment cannot be 
claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested 
right. The Court should not stretch the provision 
by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits 
on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment 
should, therefore, be provided immediately to 
redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep 
such a case pending for years." 
(Underlining added) 
8. The above consistent view has been reiterated in 
various judgments by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nag pal vs. 
State ofHaryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138, State of Manipur 
G vs. Md. Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511, Steel Authority of India 
Ltd. vs.
Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560 and 
SanjayKumar vs. State of Bihar& Ors., (2000) 7SCC192. 
9. Before adverting to the arguments of the learned counsel 
H for the parties, it is necessary to examine the scope of the
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 
733 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Scheme dated 8.05.1993 vide Circular No.154/1993 for A 
"compassionate appointment". The object of the Scheme is 
to help dependants of employees of Canara Bank who die or 
become totally and permanently disabled while in harness and 
to overcome the immediate financial difficulties on account of 
sudden stoppage c:if the main source of income. The B 
employment under the scheme will be considered only if there 
are indigent circumstances necessitating employment to one 
of the dependants and the deceased employee's service 
record is unblemished. Mere eligibility will not vest a right for 
claiming employment. As per para 3.1, application for C 
employment should be sought within 2Y2 years from the date 
of death of the employees. In para 3.2, it is stated that in case 
of the dependant of the deceased employee t6 be offered 
appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of D 
appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority 
provided a request is made to the bank by the family of the 
deceased employee and the same may be considered subject 
to rules prevailing at the time of consideration. 
10. During the pendency of the matter before the Division 
E 
Bench, Indian Banks Association (for short 'IBA') formulated a 
scheme based on the guidelines issued by the Government of 
India. As per the said Scheme, the banks have scrapped the 
scheme of compassionate appointment and introduced the F 
new
scheme of ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate 
appointment by H.O. Circular No.35/2005 dated 14.02.2005. 
According to appellant-Bank, as on date of consideration of 
the application for compassionate appointment, there was no 
policy to provide compassionate appointment under 'Dying in 
G 
Harness Scheme'. It is therefore the contention of the bank 
that the new scheme of 2005 applies to all pending 
applications for appointment on compassionate ground, 
respondent's case could not be considered and as per the 
new Scheme, they are only entitled to ex-gratia payment in 
H
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
lieu of compassionate appointment. 
11. The main question falling for consideration is whether 
the Scheme passed in 2005 providing for ex-gratia payment 
or the Scheme then in vogue in 1993 providing for 
B compassionate appointment is applicable to the respondent. 
Appellant-bank has placed reliance upon the judgment of this 
Court in Jaspal Kaur's case (supra) to contend that the 
respondent's case cannot be considered on the basis of 
'Dying in Harness Scheme 1993' when the new Scheme of 
C 2005 providing for ex-gratia payment had been put in place. 
In Jaspa/ Kaur's case (supra), Sukhbir lnder Singh employee 
of state Bank of India, Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts) 
passed away on 1.08.1999. Widow of the employee applied 
for compassionate appointment in State Bank of India on 
D 5.02.2000. On 7 .01.2002, the competent authority of the bank 
rejected the application of Jaspal Kaur in view of the Scheme 
vis-a-vis the financial position of the family. Against that 
decision of the competent authority, the respondent filed writ 
petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which has 
E directed to consider the case of Jaspal Kaur by applying the 
Scheme formulated on 4.08.2005 when her application was 
made in the year 2000. In that factual matrix, this Court has 
directed that dispute arising in the year 2000 cannot be decided 
F on the basis of a Scheme that was put in place much after the 
dispute. By perusal of
the judgment in Jaspa/ Kaur's case, it 
is apparent that the judgment specifically states that claim of 
compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular 
year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme 
G that came into force much after the claim. 
· 
12. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in the 
case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors., 
(2011) 4 sec 209, wherein it was held as under:-
H 
"15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 
735 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
employment is given solely on humanitarian A 
grounds with the sole object to provide immediate 
relief to the employee's family to tide over the 
sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a 
matter of right. Appointment based solely on 
descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, B 
and ordinarily public employment must be strictly 
on the basis of open invitation of applications and 
comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 
and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode 
of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the C 
concept of compassionate appointment has been 
recognised as an exception to the general rule, 
carved out in the interest of justice, in certain 
exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which 0 
partakes the character of the service rules. That 
being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme 
or the policy. as the case may be, is binding both 
on the employer and the employee. Being an 
exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed E 
and confined only to the purpose it seeks to 
achieve. 
17. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 
F 
(1994) 4 sec 138, while emphasising that a 
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as 
a matter of course or in posts above Classes Ill and 
IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, para 
2) 
G 
"2 .... The whole object of granting compassionate 
employment is thus to enable the family to tide over 
the
sudden crisis. The object is not to give a 
member of such family a post much less a post for H
736 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
post held by the deceased. What is further, mere 
death of an employee in harness does not entitle 
his family to such source of livelihood. The 
Government or the public authority concerned has 
to examine the financial condition of the family of 
the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but 
for the provision of employment, the family will not 
be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered 
to the eligible member of the family. The posts in 
Classes Ill and IV are the lowest posts in non-
manual and manual categories and hence they 
alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, 
the object being to relieve the family, of the financial 
destitution and to help it get over the emergency. 
The provision of employment in such lowest posts 
by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and 
valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable 
treatment given to such dependant of the deceased 
employee in such posts has a rational nexus with 
the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against 
destitution. No other posts are expected or required 
to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. 
It must be remembered in this connection that as 
against the destitute family of the deceased there 
are millions of other farftilies which are equally, if 
not more destitute. The exception to the .rule made 
in favour of the family of the deceased employee is 
in consideration of
the services rendered by him 
and the legitimate expectations, and the change in 
the status and affairs, of the family engendered by 
the erstwhile employment which are "suddenly 
upturned." 
20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 
737 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
on compassionate ground, the following factors A 
have to be borne in mind: 
(1) Compassionate employment cannot be made in 
the absence of rules or regulations issued by the 
Government or a public authority. The request is to B 
be considered strictly in accordance with the 
governing scheme, and no discretion as such is 
left with any authority to make compassionate 
appointment dehors the scheme. 
(i1) An application for compassionate employment 
must be preferred without undue delay and has to 
be considered within a reasonable period of time. 
c 
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is 0 
to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family 
on account of the death or medical invalidation of 
the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, 
compassionate employment cannot be granted as 
a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective E 
of the financial condition of the deceased/ 
incapacitated employee's family at the time of his 
death or incapacity, as the case may be. 
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only F 
to one of the dependants of the deceased/ 
incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son 
or daughter and not to all relatives, and such 
appointments should be only to the lowest 
category that is Class Ill and IV posts," 
G 
(Underlining added) 
13. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as 
discussed earlier, respondent's father di~d on 10.10,.1998 
while he was
serving as a clerk in the appellant-bank and the 
H
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as 
per the scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme' dated 8.05.1993 
which was in force at that time. The appellant-bank rejected 
the respondent's claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are 
no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the 
B respondent. Again on 7 .11.2001, the appellant-bank sought 
for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent's 
employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above 
decisions, the cause of action to be considered for 
compassionate appointment arose when the Circular 
C No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the 
ju'dgment referred in Jaspal Kaur's case, the claim cannot be 
decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. 
The Circular dated 14.2.2005 being an administrative or 
0 
executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take 
away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 
1993. 
14. It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme providing 
only for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate 
E appointment stands superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which 
. has revived the scheme providing for compassionate 
appointment. As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide 
compassionate appointment. Under these circumstances, the 
F appellant-bank is not justified in contending that the application 
for compassionate appointment of the respondent cannot
be 
considered in view of passage of time. 
15. Insofar as the contention of the appellant-bank that 
since the respondent's family is getting family pension and 
G also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no 
consequence in considering the application for compassionate 
appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case 
the dependant of deceased employee to be offered 
H appointment is_ a minor, the bank may keep the offer of
CANARABANKANDANR. v. M. MAHESH KUMAR 
739 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. This A 
would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no 
consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, ifthe 
applicant is a minor, the bank would keep the appointment 
open till the minor attains the majority. 
B 
16. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & 
Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493, while dealing with the application 
made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground 
applicable.to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was 
that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit C 
Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the 
deceased employee, the request for compassionate 
appointment cannot be acceded to. RejeQting that contention 
in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:-
D 
"13 ..... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme 
cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of 
compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in 
the family by reason of the death of the breadearner 
can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount E 
being made available to the family -
this is rather 
unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of 
security drops to zero on the death of the 
breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it 
is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is F 
made available with a compassionate appointment, 
the grief-stricker. family may find some solace to
the mental agony and manage its affairs in the 
normal course of events. It is not that monetary 
benefit would be the replacement of the G 
breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring 
some solace to the situation." 
Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd. 's case, High Court 
H
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of 
temlinal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing 
employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it 
is not the case of the bank that the respondents' family is having 
any other income to negate their claim for appointment on 
B compassionate ground. 
17. Considering the scope of the Scheme 'Dying in 
Harness Scheme 1993' then in force and the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the 
C appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for 
compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as 
per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any 
reason warranting interference. 
D 
18. So far as the cases in Civil Appeal No.266/2008 and 
Civil Appeal No.267/2008 are concerned, they are similar and. 
those respondents are similarly placed and the appeals 
preferred by the bank are liable to be dismissed. The appellant-
bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents in 
E Civil Appeal Nos. 266/2008 and 267/2008. 
19. In the result, all the appeals preferred by the appellant-
bank are dismissed and the appellant bank is directed to 
consider the case of the respondents for compassionate 
F appointment as per the Scheme which was in vogue at the • 
time of death of the concerned employee. In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. 
Kalpana K.
Tripathy 
Appeals dismissed. 
G