Page 1

 REPORTABLE              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                  CIVIL APPEAL NO.9730 OF 2011   State Bank of India & Ors.         ......Appellants

Versus Surya Narain Tripathi           .....Respondents

JUDGMENT H.L.GOKHALE,J.

(1) This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated  

7th February, 2006 rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of  

Allahabad  in  Special  Appeal  No.318  of  2004  which  confirmed  the  

judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 3rd August, 2014 in Writ  

Petition No.5045 of 1999.

(2)   Heard  Mr.  Vikas  Singh  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sunny Choudhary learned counsel  

appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3)  The brief facts of this appeal are that the one B.P. Tripathi  

the father of the first respondent was working in the State Bank of  

India from 27.12.1969 and he died while in service on 19.1.1998  

after completing more than 28 years of service.  At that time he was  

working as Assistant Manager.  The respondent No.1 who is his son  

applied for a job on compassionate basis and his application was  

turned down by the Bank which led to the writ petition.  The writ  

petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal of  

the  Bank   therefrom   was dismissed.  Hence this appeal by special

Page 2

...2/-

:2:

leave.

(4)   It  is submitted  by Mr.  Vikas Singh  learned senior  counsel  

appearing for appellants that earlier in the year 1979 there was a  

different scheme  which was prevalent in the matter of compassionate  

appointment,  and  amongst  others  there  was  a  provision  for  an  

interview under clause 7.5(f) of the Hand Book on Staff Matters. In  

1994 this Court rendered a judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State  

of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 wherein it was laid  

down that the object of compassionate appointment is meant to enable  

the bereaved family of the deceased employee to face the sudden  

financial crisis and not to provide employment as such.  This led  

the Bank to frame another policy in the year 1998. This judgment is  

referred  in  the  new  policy  and  it  is  provided  therein  as  an  

objective  that  when  the  Bank  is  satisfied  that  the  financial  

condition of the family is such that it  requires employment that  

compassionate appointment will be offered.

(5)   It  is  the  case  of  the  Bank  that  as  far  as  the  present  

appointment is concerned all relevant factors were considered.  It  

was noticed that the salary of the deceased at the time of his death  

was Rs.8,970/-. His family was given an amount of Rs.5,98,092/- plus  

0.25  lakh  as  terminal  benefits.  If  the  said  amount  was  to  be  

invested properly, it would get interest at least of Rs.5,000/- p.m.  

This was apart from the family pension of Rs.4208+Admissible D.A.

Page 3

...3/-

:3:

The Bank, therefore, took  the  view that the circumstances do not  

warrant the compassionate appointment for the respondent which was  

applied for.   

(6)  Mr. Vikas Singh learned senior counsel pointed out that this  

Court has specifically gone into these aspects in the case of Union  

Bank of India & Ors. vs. M.T. Latheesh reported in 2006 (7) SCC 350  

wherein  the  benefits  which  would  be  received  by  the  deceased  

employee were gone into and on that footing the Court came to the  

conclusion that if the benefits are comparable, then there is no  

case for comparable appointment.   The same view has been repeated  

in the case of appellant State Bank itself in the case of State Bank  

of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in 2007 (9) SCC 571.  

(7)  Mr. Sunny Choudhary counsel appearing for the respondent, on  

the  other  hand,  submitted  that  this  was  a  hard  case,  and  the  

deceased has left behind a large family.  Apart from the widow, he  

had two sons and five daughters and three of them were unmarried.  

Considering this fact it was expected that the Bank should provide  

appointment to one of the members of the family when the main bread  

earner had passed away.  We relied upon the judgment of this Court  

in  Govind Prakash Verma vs.  Life Insurance Corporation of India &  

Ors. reported in 2005 (10) SCC 289 where a view has been taken that  

the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on  the  ground that

Page 4

...4/-

:4:

another member of the family had received appropriate employment and  

the service benefits were adequate.  We may humbly state that this  

view runs counter to the view which was taken earlier in the case of  

Umesh Kumar Nagpal which was not cited before the Court in  Govind  

Prakash (supra).  The subsequent two judgments which were referred  

above also take the same view as in Umesh Nagpal (supra). Mr. Vikas  

Singh has drawn our attention to the judgment in the case of State  

Bank of India & Anr. vs. Somvir Singh reported on 2007 (4) SCC 778  

where the 1998 scheme has been considered.  

(8)  In all the matters of compassionate appointment it must be  

noticed that it is basically a way out for the family which is  

financially in difficulties on account of the death of the bread  

earner.  It is not an avenue for a regular employment as such.  This  

is in fact an exception to the provisions under Article 16 of the  

Constitution.  That being so, if an employer points out that the  

financial arrangement made for the family subsequent to the death of  

the employee is adequate, the members of the family cannot insist  

that one of them ought to be provided a comparable appointment.  

This being the principle which has been adopted all throughout,  it  

is difficult for us to accept the submission made on behalf of the  

respondent.

(9) As stated earlier, the deceased left behind a large family.  

The fact however, remains that by now 15 years have gone since then.

Page 5

...5/-

:5:

Besides the Bank has made appropriate financial provision at par  

with similar arrangement that was noted by this Court in the case of  

M.T. Latheesh (supra).  Therefore it is not possible for us to say  

that  the  Court  could  have  directed  the  Bank  to  consider  

compassionate  appointment.   In  the  circumstances,  the  appeal  is  

allowed.  The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge as well  

as by the Division Bench are set aside.  The writ petition No.5045  

of 1999 filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed.

(10) Although we are allowing this appeal, Mr. Vikas Singh very  

fairly stated that looking at the difficulties of the family, and  

that the respondent was required to go through the litigation upto  

the  Supreme  Court,  the  Court  may  consider  granting  appropriate  

litigation expenses to the respondent.  We quite appreciate this  

gesture  and order that the appellant Bank will pay an amount of  

Rs.1 lakh to the respondent on this  count.  However, we make it  

clear  that this  order on  costs is  made in  consideration of  the  

special facts of this case.

           ...........................J.     ( H.L. GOKHALE )                 

                               ...........................J.      (KURIAN JOSEPH )

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 11, 2014.

Page 6

ITEM NO.101               COURT NO.10             SECTION XI

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                   CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9730 OF 2011

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.                        Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

SURYA NARAIN TRIPATHI                             Respondent(s)

Date: 11/02/2014  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr.Adv.                      Mr. Sanjay Kapur,Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunny Chowdhary, Adv.                      Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

The appeal is allowed in terms of the  signed judgment.

[Usha Bhardwaj]          [Sneh Lata Sharma]   A.R-cum-P.S.              Court Master

    Signed reportable judgment is placed on  

the file.

Page 7