Immediacy and Indigence as Essential Criteria for Compassionate Appointments

Introduction

The decision in Smt. Dukhiya Bai v. Punjab National Bank (2025: CGHC: 15605‑DB) clarifies the scope of “compassionate appointment” under banking service rules. The appellants are the widow and son of a deceased Bank employee (Daftari) whose post‑death application for compassionate employment was denied by Punjab National Bank on the ground that the family was not indigent and already had an earning member. The Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) was called upon to examine whether the scheme’s purpose—relief of sudden financial distress—was defeated if mere existence of a low‑paid earning member disqualified a family. The key issues are: (1) Is the presence of another earning member an absolute bar to compassionate appointment? (2) How immediate and drastic must the financial crisis be? (3) What effect do family pension and terminal benefits have on eligibility?

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order rejecting the appellants’ writ petition. The Court held:

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and is available only when the family is in immediate financial crisis.
The presence of another earning member—even if modestly paid—indicates that the family is not in complete destitution and thus falls outside the exigencies warranting relief.
Family pension and terminal benefits cannot by themselves nullify the requirement of indigence and immediacy.
Prolonged delay in claiming the appointment dilutes the sense of sudden crisis.

Accordingly, since the appellants’ younger son earned a regular salary (₹10,270 per month) and the widow drew family pension (₹11,073 per month) plus other small incomes, the Bench found no jurisdictional error in denying the appointment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Govind Prasad Verma v. LIC of India & Others (2005 (10) SCC 289): The Supreme Court held that family pension and terminal benefits cannot be the sole basis for denying compassionate appointment. However, the larger purpose—to tide over immediate crisis—must guide grant of relief.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State Of Haryana & Others (1994 (4) SCC 138): The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments aim to relieve families from sudden destitution and should be granted only where the family’s financial situation amounts to genuine indigence.

These precedents reinforce that while ancillary benefits do not disqualify an applicant, the fundamental criterion remains an inability to sustain on existing resources.

Legal Reasoning

The Division Bench’s reasoning unfolds in three main steps:

Exceptionality of the relief: Compassionate appointment deviates from merit‑based recruitment and must therefore be strictly confined to cases of genuine emergency.
Assessment of indigence: The Court examined all streams of family income—pension, agricultural earnings, bank interest, and the son’s salary—and concluded that the family was not left “in penury without means of livelihood.”
Immediacy and delay: A delay of 335 days in filing the appeal, coupled with the period taken by authorities to decide the application, diluted the urgency. The scheme presupposes prompt action to address a sudden loss of income; a protracted timeline undermines that premise.

Impact

This judgment will guide future courts and banking authorities in evaluating compassionate‑appointment claims:

Stricter scrutiny: Banks will undertake a detailed assessment of all family incomes and liabilities before granting relief.
Deterrence of speculative claims: The emphasis on immediacy and actual indigence discourages applicants from invoking the scheme as a fallback when other incomes exist.
Uniform application across services: Although decided under bank rules, the principles of indigence and immediacy may inform public‑sector compassionate‑appointment policies more broadly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Compassionate Appointment: A non‑competitive, special recruitment avenue for a deceased employee’s dependent—intended to relieve sudden financial hardship.
Indigence: A state of acute poverty where a family cannot meet basic living expenses without external employment.
Immediacy: The requirement that relief be tied to the sudden loss of income and applied for and granted without undue delay.
Family Pension & Terminal Benefits: Post‑retirement/death payouts that support dependents but do not automatically establish eligibility for additional employment relief.

Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Smt. Dukhiya Bai v. Punjab National Bank reaffirms that compassionate appointments are narrow exceptions, contingent on proven indigence and an unmitigated, immediate crisis. Mere existence of modest alternative incomes or delayed pursuit of relief strips away the exceptional character of the remedy. This ruling brings clarity and discipline to compassionate‑appointment schemes, ensuring they serve only those truly bereft of means and speedily address sudden hardships.