State Bank Of India And Others v. Akeel Ahmed Khan .

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter concerns a claim for compassionate appointment. The High Court directed reconsideration of the respondent’s case in light of three cited instances (Chief Manager Mr P.K. Nath, Assistant Manager Mr K.J. Rajgoplan, and Mr Javed Akhtar, General Manager, Delhi Circle) where relatives of those employees were granted compassionate appointment. The appellants did not dispute that compassionate appointments were granted in those three instances, but asserted that distinguishing factors existed as compared to the present case. The Supreme Court granted leave and addressed the appropriate course for reconsideration by the competent authority.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the competent authority must reconsider the compassionate appointment claim by applying the same principle that was followed in granting compassionate appointments in the three cited instances.
2. Whether the Court should itself conduct a factual enquiry into the asserted distinguishing factors, or leave that assessment to the authority concerned.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Compassionate appointments were granted in the three cited instances, but the appellants contended that there were distinguishing factors between those cases and the present case.

Respondent's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the High Court had directed reconsideration by comparing the present claim with three specific prior instances of compassionate appointment, and that the appellants did not dispute the fact of those appointments. While the appellants asserted that the prior instances were distinguishable, the Court declined to undertake that enquiry itself. Instead, it held that the matter required in-depth consideration by the competent authority. The Court further clarified that whatever principle was applied in granting compassionate appointment in the three cited instances must also be applied in relation to the appellant’s case.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF: The appeal was disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Implications: The competent authority must reconsider the compassionate appointment claim in depth, and apply the same principle used in the three cited compassionate appointment instances to the appellant’s case. The order records no broader implications beyond directing consistent application of the governing principle in the reconsideration process.