Madhya Pradesh High Court slams Union Bank of India for ‘weaponising’ late employee’s record to deny son job

“This court is utterly surprised as to how the alleged unsatisfactory service record of the petitioner’s father can suddenly be weaponised as a ground for the outright rejection of a compassionate appointment claim,” the court said on April 24.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai heard the matter on April 24.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered Rs 50,000 in compensation for the petitioner for the unwarranted harassment and immense hardship inflicted upon the impoverished petitioner.

While taking a strong exception to the glaringly apathetic approach by the respondent authorities, the order noted that the rejection is demonstrably arbitrary, legally perverse, and entirely against the established statutory law of compassionate appointment.

Tragic death of father and son’s legal battle for his right

The petitioner approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking its invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner was challenging the Union Bank of India 2018 order that declined the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment following the untimely demise of his father.

The petitioner pleaded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court for the issuance of certiorari to effectively quash the Union Bank of India order dated January 30, 2018. He also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to post a peon/messenger in the sub-staff cadre.

The petitioner claimed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court that this appointment from the retrospective date of the death of his deceased father, i.e., August 7, 2016, along with all the consequential and monetary benefits arising thereof.

His father was a regular employee of the respondent bank. He was serving on the substantive post of ‘daftary’ at the Sagra Branch in District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. He completed 22 years and four months of continuous and uninterrupted service in the bank before he tragically passed away in August 2016 due to a massive and sudden heart attack while in harness.

The petitioner is the only son and a completely dependent, unemployed youth of 20 years of age. His mother had already passed away earlier in the year 2012, leaving the entire family effectively orphaned upon the father’s sudden demise.

The principal contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have arbitrarily and unlawfully refused the appointment on the completely false plea of an “unsatisfactory service record” of his late father.

‘Forced to endure financial hardship, prolonged agony’

• A meticulous scrutiny of the rejection order clearly reveals that it does not contain or cite any specific clause of the applicable policy that mandates that an “unsatisfactory service record” can be a valid ground for rejection.
• The respondents have completely failed to demonstrate how this alien criterion was imported into the decision-making process when the prevailing compassionate appointment scheme does not contemplate any such exclusionary provisions.
• The authorities have totally bypassed the very essence and strict text of their own compassionate appointment policy.
• The petitioner had applied promptly, and the family’s acute destitution is undisputed on record, yet the claim was mercilessly defeated on wholly extraneous grounds.
• These types of mechanical and apathetic rejections, which quote non-existent or legally unsupported reasons, are heavily criticised and strongly deprecated by this court.
• The records reveal that the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment promptly after his father’s demise in August 2016.

• The respondents kept the matter pending for an inordinate period and ultimately rejected it in 2018 on a vague, extraneous ground that finds no mention in the prevailing policy.
• The petitioner has been forced to endure severe financial hardship and prolonged agony from 2016 to the present for the realisation of his legitimate claim.
• Imperative to record a strict word of caution directed at the respondent authorities and competent officers regarding the adjudication of compassionate appointment claims.
• Authorities are duty-bound to pass reasoned and speaking orders, strictly confining their scrutiny to the four corners of the prevailing policy without importing alien or unwritten criteria, such as the deceased’s past service record in the present case.

Madhya Pradesh High Court findings

• Since the Union Bank of India and others have completely failed to represent themselves or file any reply despite the service of notice back in February 2019, this court is compelled to proceed ex parte.
• Looking into the sheer gravity of the case, the highly penurious condition of the surviving dependents, and the immense delay that has already occurred, the court deems it appropriate and strictly in the interest of justice to finally hear and adjudicate this matter without awaiting any further response.
• The law relating to compassionate appointment is well-settled and no longer res integra.
• The Supreme Court in the State of West Bengal v Debabrata Tiwari and ors has observed that it may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determinations of claims for compassionate appointment.
• In Sushma Gosain v Union of India, the court held that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment.
• The apex court has consistently ruled that such an appointment makes a strict departure from the general recruitment rules and is an exception aimed at enabling the family to tide over a sudden financial crisis.
• It is not a vested right to be claimed after a long lapse of time, nor is it an alternative source of recruitment.
• The appointment must be provided immediately, keeping in view the family’s overall financial condition, liabilities, and total absence of alternative livelihood.