CANARA BANK –VS- AJITHKUMAR G.K

Author: Ashish Kumar Karmakar, Dhubri Law College, Gauhati University

This case represents a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India in connection with an appointment under the compassionate scheme 1993 in the banking sector. Ajithkumar GK is the son of the deceased employee who was employed in Canara Bank and had expired in the year 2001, just four months before his retirement. Ajithkumar applied for the bank compassionate appointment scheme 1993 within one month after the expiry of his father, under which the dependant of the deceased employee shall be appointed either in a clerical or subordinate post to the deceased of the same bank subject to the availability of vacancies. His application for appointment was rejected by the General Deputy Manager, who stated that his mother was already a pension holder in the family and that he was overaged for this post.

Ajithkumar filed a civil suit in the Kerala High Court for claiming the appointment in the said bank. The High Court single bench judge has ordered the bank to reconsider the application and give an appointment within two months along with an exemplary cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the reluctance to give an appointment. Hence the High Court accepted the appeal by saying this.

Canara Bank further approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the court held that this case is not the first time that the respondent's father died during the service period, it cannot be only remedied through the compassionate of appointment. Thus the impugned order was set aside and allowed the appeal.

Ajithkumar G.K., the respondent, and Canara Bank, the appellant in this case. The respondent’s father was an employee of the bank and died in 2001 before the completion of the retirement. As per the bank's compassionate appointment scheme 1993, the dependant of the deceased employee shall get an opportunity to serve the bank. The petitioner sent an application to get the job of his father but it was rejected by the appellant bank by saying that the respondent’s mother is already a pension holder and the respondent is over-aged. This was the prime event that led to the legal dispute.

The respondent approached the High Court of Kerala to claim the job in the appellant’s bank. During the litigation phase of this case, the appellant bank brought a new compassionate scheme in the year 2005, where the respondent bank should pay a lump sum consideration of ex-gratia to the dependant of the deceased employee. The appellant argued that the compassionate appointment scheme of 1993 is no longer utilized and has been replaced by the compassionate appointment scheme of 2005. The single bench judge of the High Court directed the respondent bank to reconsider the appointment within two months, along with an exemplary cost of Rs. 500,000/- for a delayed appointment. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal by giving directions to the appellant bank. The appellant further appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the court held that this case is not the first time that the respondent’s father died during the service period, and it cannot be only remedied through the compassionate of appointment. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was accepted.

The following are the legal issues that the court needed to resolve:

1. Is the compassionate appointment scheme 1993 applicable?

2. What are the eligibility criteria for a compassionate appointment?

3.  Is the scheme 2005, which was brought by the bank, considered to be retrospective?

4. Is the respondent entitled to the compassionate appointment, or it is at the discretion of the bank?

5. What is the interpretation of the compassionate appointment scheme of the bank?

The legal issues are briefly explained below:

1. The issue established that the respondent is entitled to take benefits under the old scheme or the new scheme. If the old scheme applies, then the respondent shall be eligible for the compassionate appointment scheme of 1993. On the other hand, the respondent shall get a lump sum ex-gratia payment under the new scheme of 2005.

2. The issue impacts the eligibility of the respondent under the compassionate appointment scheme. If the court finds that the respondent is not eligible regarding age and other factors, then the court can use this as a precedent for upcoming cases that involve similar eligibility issues.

3. The issue shall bring huge implications for the employees who serve the bank. If the court considers the retrospective application of the 2005 scheme, then all the employees of the bank shall lose hope under the old scheme of 1993.

4. The issue raises questions regarding the discretion of the bank to grant compassionate appointments. If the court considers that the respondent is entitled to get an appointment as a matter of right, then it shall restrict the discretion of the bank in upcoming cases.

5. The issue directly affects how the court can interpret the policies and schemes of the banks. It gives guidance on the interpretation of the schemes for upcoming cases which involves compassionate appointment and assures the stability of the decision-making process of the banks.  

1. The Honourable Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, directing the appellant to give an appointment on a compassionate scheme to the respondent. The respondent’s claim was spurned by looking into the financial condition that the compassionate appointment shall not be given.

2. The court also held that before giving a compassionate appointment under the 1993 scheme it is important to determine the financial condition of the respondent’s family. Stability was found and no indigent there in the family. Hence the respondent was not eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Scheme 1993.

3. The scheme of 1993 ambition is to give appointment to those who is suffering from poverty after immediate demise of the bread earner in the family. The court also held that the family of the respondent does not fall under the poverty or indigent category. 

4. The court interpreted the present case of the Canara Bank that the rightful way to provide job opportunities to the dependent of the deceased employee has been distinguished even though the stability of the family.

5. The compassionate scheme of 1993 is not a straitjacket for the dependents of the deceased employee to get a job after immediate demise during the period of employment. The mother of the respondent is already a pension holder in the family to fulfill the basic needs, and also, the bank has given a lump sum consideration of Rs.3,09,000/-  as a net terminal benefit to the family. This scheme is purely meant to give financial assistance to meet the basic requirements for daily livelihood. The court explicitly explained the importance of the compassionate appointment scheme of 1993 and did not grant direction to appointment as the normal course of right.

The court held that the scheme for compassionate appointment 1993 is not a straitjacket for offering opportunities to the dependent of the deceased employee as a matter of right. The court also examined from this case that the stability of a family shall be a crucial factor for the scheme of 1993. The court goes through the matter of financial assistance, which forms the basic requirement for daily livelihood, is not there in the present case. Hence the compassionate scheme 1993 shall not be granted at all.

The following are the case laws of previous cases cited by the court in its decision:

1. Haryana State Electricity Board –Vs- Hakim Singh

2. General Manager, State Bank Of India –Vs- Anju Jain

3. Haryana State Electricity Board –Vs- Krishna Devi

4. Sushma Gosain –Vs- Union of India

5. Uttranchal Jal Sansthan –Vs- Laxmi devi

6. Sail –Vs- Madhusudhan Das

7. State of Chattisgarh –Vs- Dhirjo Kumar sengar

8. Bhawani Prasad Sonkar –Vs- Union of India

9. Union of India –Vs- Amrita Sinha

10. Estern Coalfields Ltd. –Vs- Anil Badyakar

1. The court shall apply a very stringent process while dealing with the compassionate appointment scheme cases with the view of actual financial indigence or poverty. The applicant’s financial conditions shall be scrutinized properly, along with the robust evidence needed before granting such appointments. With this recent case, the court shall strongly rely upon precedents or statutes of previous cases while making decisions rather than only focusing on the facts of the case.

2. This case explicitly defined that the matter of right shall not work in all circumstances but in hands-to-mouth cases. It was also determined that compassionate appointment should not be abused in all cases where the appointment is not necessary for the dependent of the deceased as their financial condition is sound enough. 

3. This case also makes a broader impact on social as well as political aspects with the view that granting the welfare scheme of the government requires robust evidence produced before the court before granting benefits.

1. For mitigating or minimizing factors like age, pension holder, indigent conditions, etc., the court should have demonstrated clear instructions in this case. The court can also provide alternative ways of assistance to the respondent from the bank's point of view rather than directly spurning the application. 

2. The court’s decision was only based on compassionate appointment scheme analysis and the statutes and precedents of previous case laws.

3. The court’s interpretation of the compassionate scheme was based on financial hardship or poverty. The decision of the court in this present case ensures that future cases shall be inconsistent under the compassionate scheme. The court’s demonstration of the financial condition of this case shall strongly reject meritorious candidates.  

Conclusion: The judgment of this case solely relies upon the precedents and statutes of the earlier cases and the financial conditions of the respondent. This case was first tried by the High Court of Kerala which directed the bank to pay a lump sum consideration along with accepting the application of the respondent due to reluctance for appointment. The bank appealed the special leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the contention that a one-time terminal benefit had been given to the respondent’s family, and also, there was a pension holder in the family, and the applicant was overaged. The court allowed the appeal by saying the remedy couldn’t be solely dependent on giving an appointment.

1. https://www.sci.gov.in/. INDIA, SUPREME COURT OF. 2025.