- Case
- PANKAJ S/O SHIVNATH NIKHAR v. UNION OF INDIA, THR. SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VITTA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 26-03-2025)
- Law
- N/A, Writ Petition, Service Law.
Facts: The petitioner's father, an employee of Syndicate Bank, died in harness due to Covid-19 after the bank's amalgamation with Canara Bank. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was denied by Canara Bank. The denial was based on the bank's assessment that the family was not indigent, considering the family pension and the income of the petitioner's brothers working abroad.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment.
Issue: Whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment should be considered based on the policy of Syndicate Bank, which was in effect when his father's service conditions were protected under the amalgamation scheme, or the policy of Canara Bank? And whether the family could be denied compassionate appointment based on the income of family members living abroad?
Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the rejection of the petitioner's application. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment based on Clause 6 of the Unified Policy of Syndicate Bank.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that despite the father's death occurring after the amalgamation, the notification dated 4.3.2020 specifically protected the interests and service conditions of transferring employees. Clause 13 of the Amalgamation Scheme clarified that the service conditions of the employees of the erstwhile Syndicate Bank were protected. The Court found Canara Bank's reliance on its own policy untenable, as the Syndicate Bank's policy, specifically Clause 6 regarding eligibility, should govern the case. The court also noted that the income of brothers living abroad and not supporting the family should not be considered when deciding on compassionate appointment.
