2010 (2) TMI 1042 - SC - Indian Laws

Compassionate appointment Whether respondent really wanted the appointment? Whether he possessed the eligibility? Whether any post was available? Held that - The High Court was not justified in quashing the communication dated 31.1.2006 or in directing reconsideration of the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment. Allow this appeal in part as the orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench are set aside.The respondent and/or his family may file a fresh application under the new scheme, as directed by the Bank in its letter dated 31.1.2006.The appellant Bank is directed to process such application under the new scheme, if and when made, and pay the lump sum ex gratia amount due in terms of that scheme, to the beneficiaries, within four months of the receipt of the application.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the new scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in place of the old compassionate appointment scheme.
2. Applicability of the new scheme to pending applications made under the old scheme.
3. Consideration of eligibility criteria and availability of posts for compassionate appointment.
4. Comparison between automatic appointment schemes and schemes requiring application and verification.
5. Determination of the scheme applicable based on the date of application processing.
6. Analysis of relevant legal precedents on scheme applicability and vested rights.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the new scheme:
The judgment dealt with the substitution of the compassionate appointment scheme by the "SBI Scheme for payment of ex-gratia Lumpsum Amount." The new scheme abolished the old scheme and provided for payment of ex gratia lumpsum amount. The clauses of the new scheme relevant to the case were analyzed to determine the effect of the scheme substitution.

Issue 2: Applicability of the new scheme:
The main contention was whether the new scheme, which came into force after the death of the employee and the application for compassionate appointment, should apply to pending applications made under the old scheme. The court examined the language of the new scheme and its provisions regarding pending applications to decide the scheme's applicability.

Issue 3: Consideration of eligibility and availability:
The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling eligibility criteria and the availability of posts for compassionate appointment under the scheme. The court emphasized that appointment on compassionate grounds is a concession, not a right, and is subject to the scheme's rules and conditions in force at the time of application processing.

Issue 4: Automatic vs. application-based schemes:
A distinction was drawn between schemes providing automatic appointment to family members without conditions and schemes requiring application, eligibility verification, and post availability. The court explained that most schemes involve consideration of multiple applicants and do not guarantee immediate appointment upon application.

Issue 5: Determination of applicable scheme:
The court clarified that the scheme in force at the time of application processing and consideration is applicable, even if a new scheme replaces the old one during the process. The judgment emphasized that pending applications must be processed under the new scheme if specified in the scheme's provisions.

Issue 6: Legal precedents and vested rights:
Relevant legal precedents were cited to support the interpretation of scheme applicability based on the date of processing and consideration. The court highlighted that no vested rights accrue until a determination is made, and schemes should be applied as per the prevailing policy at the time of decision-making.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside previous orders directing reconsideration under the old scheme. The respondent was instructed to file a fresh application under the new scheme, with the bank directed to process the application and pay the ex gratia amount within a specified timeframe.