Bank of India vs. Pankaj Srivastava (Supreme Court, 30 April 2024)
Background
Pankaj Srivastava sought compassionate appointment as a Clerk in the Bank of India after his father, a bank employee, died in harness on 28 July 2000. The bank rejected his application, citing its internal policy that compassionate appointment could be denied if disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated against the deceased employee at the time of death. Srivastava challenged this decision, arguing that no formal disciplinary proceedings or suspension had been initiated against his father prior to his death.
Legal Proceedings
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed Srivastava’s writ petition and directed the bank to consider his application for compassionate appointment. The Division Bench upheld this order, leading the Bank of India to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
Whether mere contemplation or preparation of disciplinary proceedings against a deceased employee is sufficient to deny compassionate appointment to their dependent.
Whether the bank’s internal policy and the scheme dated 17 March 1999, particularly Clause 10(iv), justified the denial in this case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the scheme for compassionate appointment and the facts of the case. The Court noted:
At the time of Srivastava’s father’s death, no charge sheet had been issued, nor was he placed under suspension. The bank’s claim that a charge sheet was “under preparation” was not supported by any formal action or documentation.
The Court emphasized that for a dependent’s claim to be denied under the relevant policy, there must be actual and substantial steps taken toward disciplinary proceedings before the employee’s death—not merely contemplation or intention to initiate such proceedings.
The Court agreed with the findings of the High Court that the absence of a formal charge sheet or suspension meant that no major penalty was in contemplation, and thus, the policy exception did not apply.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Bank of India, affirming the High Court’s direction to consider Pankaj Srivastava’s application for compassionate appointment. The Court ordered the bank to implement the High Court’s order within four months from the date of judgment. The Court reiterated that mere contemplation of disciplinary action, without formal initiation, cannot be grounds for denying compassionate appointment.
Significance
This judgment clarifies that compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the basis of vague or unsubstantiated claims of contemplated disciplinary proceedings. Only formal, documented steps—such as issuance of a charge sheet or suspension—can justify such a denial. The decision protects the rights of dependents of deceased employees and ensures fair implementation of compassionate appointment policies.
Citation: Bank of India & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 6837 of 2023, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 30 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments