Case Note & Summary
The respondent's father, an employee of the State Bank of India, died in harness on 11.11.2004. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 03.03.2005, when the bank's compassionate appointment scheme was in force. However, before the application could be considered, the bank approved a new scheme on 04.08.2005 providing for ex gratia lumpsum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, and Clause 15(vi) of the new scheme abolished the old scheme and barred consideration of any pending applications. The bank rejected the respondent's application, leading to a writ petition. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition, directing consideration under the old scheme. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that there were two conflicting lines of precedent: one (State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar and MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh) holding that the scheme in force at the time of consideration governs, and the other (Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar) holding that the scheme in force at the time of death governs. The Court found that these principles were inconsistent and required reconciliation. Therefore, the Court referred the matter to a larger Bench of at least three judges for an authoritative decision. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but only ordered the reference.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Scheme Applicability - Conflict of Precedents - The Court noted a conflict between two lines of decisions: one holding that the scheme in force at the time of consideration governs (State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar, MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh) and another holding that the scheme in force at the time of death governs (Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar). The matter was referred to a larger Bench for resolution (Paras 7-10). B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Nature of Right - Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession traceable to the scheme; however, if a scheme is abolished, pending applications cease to exist unless saved (Paras 4, 8). C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Retrospective Effect - Administrative or executive orders substituting a compassionate appointment scheme with an ex gratia scheme cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away rights accrued under the earlier scheme (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application for compassionate appointment should be considered under the scheme in force at the time of the employee's death or under the scheme in force at the time of consideration of the application, when the scheme has been substituted by an ex gratia payment scheme.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger Bench of at least three judges to resolve the conflict between two lines of precedent. The Court did not decide the merits of the case.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession
- scheme in force at time of consideration governs unless saved
- administrative schemes cannot have retrospective effect to take away accrued rights
- conflict between Raj Kumar and MGB Gramin Bank vs. Canara Bank and M. Mahesh Kumar needs resolution
