Compassionate Appointment | 'Feel Sentiment Of Sufferer': Allahabad High Court Invokes Art 51A (g); Quashes PNB's Non-Speaking Order

While allowing the petition filed by one Abhishek Jaiswal, a bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that the word 'compassion' cannot be considered in a vacuum, as it denotes sympathy, kindness and a soft feeling of human sentiment.

In this regard, the bench referred to Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, to stress that the authorities, while considering appointment on compassionate ground must look the very aim and object of the UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, "as the same can never be understood unless the sentiment of sufferer is felt".

Briefly put, a PNB employee named Keshav Ram Jaiswal (petitioner's father) died in harness in August 2016. His widow initially submitted an application for the compassionate appointment of her son (the petitioner) in August 2018. At that point in time, the petitioner had passed his Intermediate examination.

On August 27, 2018, the bank responded and requested that the family complete the necessary formalities, which they did.

In the meantime, the office was relocated; accordingly, the bank officers requested that a new application be submitted, which was submitted in January 2021.

However, this time, the Bank rejected the claim by passing an order on September 19, 2023. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had moved the HC.

Advocate Vinod Kumar Shukla, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that although the initial application might not have been "happily worded", as it expressed a desire for appointment after the son completed his graduation, it was nevertheless a valid claim made within the limitation period. He also challenged the one-line rejection order passed by the bank authorities.

On the other hand, Advocate Vishwas Saraswat, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that the 2018 letter sent by the petitioner's mother was effectively a request for a "future appointment," which was impermissible.

He contended that the valid application was the one filed in 2021; however, since it was filed five years after the employee's death, the same was time-barred.

It was also stated that the decision to reject the petitioner was based on "oral deliberation and discussion" among the members of the Board, who found the petitioner to be ineligible.

At the outset, the bench said that it failed to understand that if at the time of issuing the letter (in August 2018), the bank had considered the letter of claim, what restrained them from proceeding for the appointment of the petitioner

It further took strong exception to the Bank's approach of passing the impugned order in one line without assigning any reason.

"….the members of the Board of the respondent bank, as per oral deliberation, have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment, and in one line, the rejection order has been passed, which abundantly makes it clear that there is non-application of mind, in passing the impugned order dated 19.09.2023, thus, the order impugned does not stand on its own leg", the bench remarked.

Justice Singh also underscored that the objective of the 1974 Rules is to provide immediate financial succour to the family of a deceased government servant and the word 'compassion' is of far-reaching consequence

"The word 'compassion' is of far-reaching consequence…Infact, it is highly rich customs and traditions of the cultural heritage of India, which has been enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India and therefore the authorities while considering appointment on compassionate ground must look the very aim and object of the Rules, 1974, as the same can never be understood unless the sentiment of sufferer is felt," the Bench observed.

The Court found that the initial application of 2018 was well within the limitation period, and the Bank had itself acted upon it by asking for formalities to be completed. It added that the demand for a fresh application in 2021 did not invalidate the original claim.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated September 19, 2023, and the matter was remitted back to the Chief Manager of the concerned branch of the Bank, with a direction to decide the matter afresh within 8 weeks.