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, 37
b. Whether The Family’s Financial Condition Should Be Considered While Granting Compassionate Appointment – Para 31, 32, 44
c. Whether Age Relaxation Can Be Granted Without Establishing Indigent Circumstances – Para 34, 35
d. 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