Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Govind Sagalgile, was an employee of Canara Bank who joined as a Clerk in 1989 and was later promoted to Officer. Due to serious health issues including Nephrotic Syndrome, he had irregular attendance and was advised by superiors to either attend regularly or opt for voluntary retirement. With about 14 years of service remaining, he applied for voluntary retirement on 22.02.2013 on grounds of his own poor health and that of his elder son. After retirement, he applied on 01.11.2013 for compassionate appointment for his disabled son, Vaibhav. The bank rejected the application via letter dated 16.01.2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of that letter and direction to appoint his son on compassionate grounds. The court examined the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995, particularly Regulation 22 which provides for compassionate appointment only in cases of death or medical invalidation of an employee. The court held that voluntary retirement does not fall within the ambit of the scheme, and compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Voluntary Retirement - Petitioner voluntarily retired on medical grounds - Claim for compassionate appointment for disabled son rejected - Held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and can only be granted as per the scheme applicable on death or medical invalidation - Voluntary retirement does not fall under the scheme (Paras 1-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who voluntarily retired on medical grounds, is entitled to compassionate appointment for his disabled son under the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The bank's rejection of the compassionate appointment application is upheld.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment
- not a vested right
- Schemes for compassionate appointment must be strictly construed
- Courts cannot direct compassionate appointment if not covered by the scheme
- Voluntary retirement on medical grounds does not automatically qualify for compassionate appointment unless specifically provided
- Retrospective application of compassionate appointment schemes is generally not permissible
- Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right
- Voluntary retirement on medical grounds does not equate to death or medical invalidation
- Scheme for compassionate appointment must be strictly construed
- Canara Bank Pension Regulations 1995
- Regulation 22
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 12
WRIT PETITION NO. 9433 OF 2014
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J, MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J
Mr. Rahul A. Tambe for Petitioner, Mr. Aditya N. Sikchi h/f Mr. Vaibhav R. Patil for Respondent No. 2
Shri. Pramod S/o. Govind Sagalgile
The General Manager, Canara Bank, Personal Wing/H.R.Wing, Head Office Bangalore; The Assistant General Manager, HRM Section, Circle Office, Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for disabled son of former bank employee who voluntarily retired on medical grounds.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of bank's letter dated 16.01.2017 rejecting application for compassionate appointment and direction to appoint son on compassionate grounds.
Filing Reason
Bank rejected application for compassionate appointment for petitioner's disabled son after petitioner voluntarily retired on medical grounds.
Previous Decisions
Bank rejected application via letter dated 16.01.2017.
Issues
Whether voluntary retirement on medical grounds entitles an employee's dependent to compassionate appointment under the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was forced to take voluntary retirement due to his own poor health and his son's disability, and his son should be given compassionate appointment.
Respondent bank argued that compassionate appointment is only permissible in cases of death or medical invalidation, not voluntary retirement.
Ratio Decidendi
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and can only be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable scheme. Voluntary retirement on medical grounds does not fall within the scope of the scheme for compassionate appointment under the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:-
The petitioner joined the services of the respondent–Canara Bank as a Clerk vide appointment order dated 01.06.1989
Due to prolonged illness and irregular attendance, the superior officers of the respondent–Bank advised the petitioner either to attend duties regularly or to opt for voluntary retirement from service.
Procedural History
Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 22.02.2013, which was accepted. He applied for compassionate appointment for his son on 01.11.2013. Bank rejected the application on 16.01.2017. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9433 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petition was reserved on 09.10.2025 and pronounced on 06.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995: Regulation 22
