PRAMOD GOVIND SAGALGILE v. THE GENERAL MANAGAER, CANARA BANK AND OTHERS
Compassionate Appointment and Ex-Gratia Payment: Bank Directed to Consider Application Under Existing Circulars Despite Subsequent Scheme Implementation.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:93-DB
Decision Date: 06-01-2026
List of Laws
Writ Petition; Compassionate Appointment; Voluntary Retirement Scheme; Ex-gratia Payment; Circular No. 35 of 2005; Circular No. 262 of 2007; Canara Bank Scheme of 2015
- Facts: Shri. Pramod Sagalgile, a pensioner, sought compassionate appointment for his physically handicapped son, Vaibhav, after taking voluntary retirement from Canara Bank due to his own ill health and his son's medical condition. The bank rejected the application, citing that the compassionate appointment scheme came into effect after his retirement and that he didn't submit a medical incapacitation certificate at the time of retirement. The petitioner had submitted applications both before and after the implementation of the new scheme.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the bank's rejection of his son's application for compassionate appointment and seeking directions for the bank to consider his application under the relevant schemes.
- Issue: Whether the bank's rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment for his son is justified, considering the petitioner's voluntary retirement on medical grounds, the existence of schemes for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, and the timing of the application relative to the implementation of the bank's new scheme.
- Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the bank's rejection and directing the bank to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment or, in lieu thereof, grant the lumpsum ex-gratia payment as per Clause B(iii) of the circular dated 24.09.2007.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioner's application, filed on 09.04.2014, should have been considered under the circulars of 2005 and 2007, which provided for ex-gratia payment in cases of voluntary retirement due to medical incapacitation. The Court noted that the 2007 circular did not mandate a medical certificate. The Court found the bank's insistence on a medical certificate and its rejection of the claim based on the timing of the new scheme to be arbitrary and a deliberate attempt to deprive the petitioner of his rightful entitlement. The court also cited Supreme Court judgments stating that a claim cannot be rejected merely due to the passage of time and that family pension and other retiral benefits are irrelevant when considering compassionate appointment.
🔒 For Members Only