Case: Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh

2023 SCC OnLine SC 745...

BENCH: Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Manoj Misra

Introduction:

The case concerns the appeal filed by the Bank of Baroda against the judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the Trial Court, granting the respondent the relief of a compassionate appointment. The issue at hand was whether the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment as per the applicable Scheme.

Facts of the Case:

The respondent’s father, who was employed by the Bank of Baroda, passed away in harness in 1999. The Bank had a Scheme in place since 1998 for granting compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased employees. The respondent’s mother applied for his compassionate appointment under the 1998 Scheme. During the pendency of this application, the Bank introduced a new Scheme for compassionate appointments in 2004. Four years after the death of his father, another representation was made on behalf of the respondent, but the Bank rejected it. The respondent filed a suit, and the Trial Court ruled in his favour, ordering his appointment. The Bank appealed to the Additional District Judge, which reversed the Trial Court’s decision. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which restored the Trial Court’s judgment. The Bank then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court?

2. Whether the respondent had a vested right to be appointed on compassionate grounds, despite not meeting all the conditions of the applicable Scheme?

Observations:

• The Supreme Court carefully applied the financial criteria set out in the 1998 Scheme for compassionate appointments. The Court found that the respondent's family income exceeded the prescribed 60% threshold of the deceased employee’s emoluments, making the respondent ineligible for a compassionate appointment.

• The Court emphasized that the eligibility for compassionate appointments depends on the financial distress of the family of the deceased employee, which was not present in this case as the income exceeded the specified limit.

• The Court critiqued the High Court for overlooking the factual aspect of the case, particularly the financial condition of the respondent’s family. The High Court had prioritized legal doctrines over the actual factual assessment, leading to the incorrect restoration of the Trial Court’s judgment.

• The judgment reinforced that compassionate appointments are not automatic but are meant to serve as a discretionary relief for families in financial need, and thus must be governed strictly by the criteria outlined in the relevant Scheme.

• The Court noted that compassionate appointments must adhere to the terms of the policy in place and that the courts cannot alter or expand the eligibility criteria in exercise of judicial review, as seen in cases like Indian Bank v. Promila.

• The Court referred to several previous judgments, including SBI v. Kunti Tiwary and State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, where it was reiterated that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general recruitment process and should only be considered in cases where the family of the deceased employee is in financial distress.The Court made it clear that compassionate appointments should be based on objective, factual assessments, rather than broad legal interpretations or emotional considerations.

Implications:

The ruling has significant implications for both employers and the judiciary:

1. The judgment reinforces that eligibility for compassionate appointment is strictly governed by the terms of the applicable Scheme. Employers must ensure that their schemes are transparent, consistent, and followed rigorously to avoid legal challenges.

2. The Court cautioned against judicial overreach, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with the employer’s discretion unless the terms of the Scheme are clearly violated. This ensures that the autonomy of employers in managing recruitment processes remains intact.

3. This judgment sets a vital precedent for future cases related to compassionate appointments, underscoring the need for factual assessments—such as income thresholds—rather than broad legal interpretations. Courts must base decisions on the specific facts and conditions laid out in the policy, rather than on general legal doctrines.

4. Employers are encouraged to periodically review and update their compassionate appointment policies to ensure they are aligned with current legal standards and societal expectations. This ensures that such policies remain relevant and effective in addressing the needs of the dependents of deceased employees while maintaining fairness and consistency in their implementation.