New Delhi, February 1
The Supreme Court today held that the compassionate employment to the kin of a government servant on his death could not be claimed in a routine manner but would be available if the family was entirely in penury. It laid down eight-point criteria for testing the family’s financial condition to claim such employment.
Applying the principle in the case of Jaspal Kaur, widow of Sukhbir Inder Singh, a State Bank of India (SBI) employee at Amritsar, the court rejected her plea for job saying she did not fulfil the guidelines laid down by the Finance Ministry in 1996 regarding compassionate appointments and the rules framed by the bank thereunder.
The eight-point criteria laid down by a Bench of Mr Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Mr Justice Altamas Kabir provided for taking into account the income from family pension, gratuity, provident fund, compensation paid by the employer from welfare fund, proceeds of LIC or other investments, income from any other source, public employment of any other member in deceased’s family, its size and financial liabilities.
“A major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made,” the court ruled.
The ruling came on an appeal of the SBI challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order of August 4, 2005, directing it to give employment to Jaspal Kaur under the compassionate scheme formulated by the bank in 2005. She had applied for the job in February 2000 after the death of her husband in August 1999.
The SBI had rejected her application in March 2004 stating that her case did not fall within the Finance Ministry guidelines and the rules framed by the bank.
The bank had taken a stand in the High Court that the financial condition of her family was not one of “destitution” as she was paid Rs 4.57 lakh as terminal benefits after adjusting all liabilities and her family pension was fixed at Rs 2,055 per month. By including the monthly interest of Rs 3,800 earned by her on the Rs 4.57 lakh amount, the bank had calculated her total earning Rs 5,855 per month.
Accepting the stand of the SBI, the apex court set aside the High Court order holding that it had “erred” in entertaining the claim of Jaspal Kaur and allowing her petition on the face of the clear guidelines laid down by the Finance Ministry.
