STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs SURYA NARAIN TRIPATHI
Bench: H.L. GOKHALE,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-009730-009730 / 2011
Diary number: 4585 / 2006
Advocates: SANJAY KAPUR Vs
C. D. SINGH
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