Supreme Court Set Aside High Court’s Order Directing Compassionate Appointment – Lump Sum Ex-Gratia Granted Under Article 142. Compassionate Appointment – Financial Condition Consideration – High Court Erred in Overlooking Suitability Criterion – Article 142 Invoked for Equitable Relief

Case Note & Summary

Acts And Sections Discussed Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Extraordinary Power Exercised for Equitable Relief – Para 49 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 33 – Power of Appellate Court in Exceptional Cases – Para 36 Canara Bank’s Compassionate Appointment Scheme, 1993 – Eligibility Criteria – Financial Condition Consideration – Age Relaxation – Para 8, 9, 29, 35 Keywords

Compassionate Appointment – Indigent Circumstances – Financial Condition – Terminal Benefits – Age Relaxation – Suitability Test – Judicial Precedents – Article 142 – Employment Policy – Penury Assessment

Issues For Consideration

a. Whether The High Court Erred In Directing Compassionate Appointment Without Assessing Financial Distress – Para 24, 30, 37b. Whether The Family’s Financial Condition Should Be Considered While Granting Compassionate Appointment – Para 31, 32, 44c. Whether Age Relaxation Can Be Granted Without Establishing Indigent Circumstances – Para 34, 35d. Whether The Division Bench Could Direct Appointment Without Subjecting The Respondent To Suitability Test – Para 33, 38

Submissions/Arguments Appellant (Canara Bank) Financial Condition Assessment Was Essential – Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Could Not Be Ignored – Para 32, 43 High Court Failed To Follow Precedents – Relief Could Not Be Granted Without Establishing Financial Hardship – Para 45 Age Relaxation Was Not Automatic – It Could Only Be Considered After Other Eligibility Criteria Were Met – Para 35 Respondent (Ajithkumar G.K.) Bank Acted Arbitrarily – Did Not Consider Relaxation Power Under The 1993 Scheme – Para 34 Receipt Of Family Pension Was Irrelevant – Financial Position Should Not Have Been A Ground For Rejection – Para 42 First High Court Judgment Had Already Settled The Issue – Rejection Of Claim Violated Res Judicata – Para 34 Decision High Court’s Order Set Aside – Direct Appointment Without Suitability Test Was Erroneous – Para 48, 50 Compassionate Appointment Not Granted – Respondent’s Family Was Not In Indigent Circumstances – Para 46 Article 142 Invoked – Lump Sum Of ₹2.5 Lakh Awarded In Full And Final Settlement – Para 49 Ratio Decidendi Compassionate Appointment Was An Exception And Could Not Be Granted As A Vested Right – Para 29, 45 Financial Distress Was A Mandatory Requirement – Terminal Benefits And Family Pension Had To Be Considered – Para 31, 44 Age Relaxation Could Not Be Claimed Automatically – It Was A Discretionary Power Exercisable Only If Other Conditions Were Met – Para 35 Courts Could Not Order Direct Appointments – Suitability Test Was A Necessary Requirement – Para 33, 38