Karnataka High Court
Sri Yashwanth S R vs Managing Director And Ceo on 18 March, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15900
WP No. 13206 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 13206 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. YASHWANTH S.R.
S/O LATE HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT HEMAVATHINAGAR
SAKALESHPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO
CANARA BANK
Digitally signed NO.112, JC ROAD,
by
SHARADAVANI HEAD OFFICE,
B
Location: High BENGALURU - 02.
Court of
Karnataka
2. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK, HRM SECTION
CIRCLE OFFICE, BALMATTA ROAD
MANGALORE - 01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15900
WP No. 13206 of 2021
HC-KAR
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.05.2021 PASSED BY THE
R2 ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"Issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, quashing the impugned endorsement dated 25.05.2021 Ref: HRW:IR:CC:2304:2021 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-J) in the interest of justice and equity. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any of respondent's branch of respondent's bank in the interest of justice and equity.
to pass any such order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the endorsements dated 13.09.2017 and 26.02.2018 issued by the first respondent rejecting the application for compassionate appointment sought for by the petitioner which was assailed by the petitioner before this -3- NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR Court in WP No.3509/2019. The said writ petition was disposed of vide final order dated 25.01.2021, whereby this Court set aside the said endorsements and directed the respondents to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment sought for by the petitioner by issuing certain directions.
4. It is submitted that though this Court had issued specific directions to the respondents to consider the application for compassionate appointment sought for by the petitioner, the respondents have once again rejected the application of the petitioner by assigning reasons contrary to the directions issued by this Court and as such petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. On 17.03.2026, the petitioner has filed a memo along with the salary details of the petitioner in order to contend that the petitioner is presently residing at Madhya Pradesh earning a total -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR salary of Rs.26,800/- including House Rent Allowance, Leave Travel Allowance etc. and since the remaining family members are not earning and are residing at Sakaleshpura, the petitioner would be entitled to seek compassionate appointment.
7. Before averting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the earlier order passed by this Court in WP 3509/2019 which reads as under:
"The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the endorsements dated 13.09.2017 and 26.02.2018, by which, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is turned down.
2. Heard Sri.Pratheep.K.C., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- Father of the petitioner, one Honnappa became a permanent employee of the respondent-Bank on his absorption as a sub-staff and on 20.07.2015 died in harness. The petitioner on the death of his father filed an application in terms of the scheme obtaining at the relevant point in time at the Bank on 14.09.2015, after which, the Bank sanctioned family pension to the mother of the petitioner to be available up to -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR 20.07.2022 for a sum of Rs.7,380/- and later, 50% of the said amount.
4. On the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the first respondent answered it by rejection on the score that the family was not in a destitute condition so as to grant appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the scheme. Explaining that the family was not in a condition that they would not want appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner gave the second application to reconsider the decision for appointment on compassionate grounds on 16.11.2017. Reiterating the same decision, the second endorsement was given to the petitioner rejecting the application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is these endorsements that are called in question in the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the family pension that the mother of the petitioner is receiving at Rs.7,380/- which would come down to Rs.3,690/- after 2022 would not be in any way enough to even meet the necessity of two square meals and will leave the family condemned by penury. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that petitioner is a qualified Mechanical Engineer, he is not in a job that would fetch the family enough and it is in those circumstances he has made repeated requests for appointment.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank would submit that the scheme for payment -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment had to be taken note of and an amount of Rs.7,70,682/- is received by the family of the petitioner on the death of the father of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has two sisters who are all married and who can take care of the family.
7. The afore-stated facts are not in dispute. An application is made by the petitioner immediately on the death of father of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a qualified Mechanical Engineer and is prepared to work in any capacity that is given by the Bank. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner is on the ground that the family is not in a destitute condition as they have received terminal benefits and the mother of the petitioner is also in receipt of family pension.
8. The scheme obtaining in the Bank at the time when the application was given by the petitioner is the one notified on 20.03.2015. The relevant clause of the scheme that is germane for consideration of the present lis reads as follows:
"19. GENERAL RULES:
PROCEDURE: 1. The official from the Branch / concerned section shall meet the members of the family of the employee in question immediately after the death to advise and assist to them in getting appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant shall be called in person at the very first stage and advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by him /her. A letter in this regard -7- NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR as per the prescribed format in Annexure III shall be handed over by them to the dependant family against the acknowledgement.
2. xxxx
3. xxxx
4. xxxx
5. xxxx
6. xxxx
7. An application for compassionate appointment shall, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc."
The scheme, as extracted hereinabove itself indicates that an application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground that family has received the benefits under various welfare schemes, a balanced and objective assessment is required to be made. If the impugned endorsements are considered qua the afore-extracted clauses of the scheme, it would fall foul of the same as the rejection initially on 13.09.2017 reads as follows:
"Your application for compassionate Appointment was placed before the Competent Authority.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR The Competent Authority has not considered the subject application for employment on Compassionate Grounds, since financial condition of the dependents is satisfactory and there are no mitigating factors to consider the request for compassionate Appointment.
In view of the same, the subject application is lodged."
Therefore, the rejection is on the ground that the financial condition of the dependents is satisfactory and there are no mitigating factors to consider the application.
9. The second endorsement given on the second application is on the ground that there is no provision to reconsider the request. It is in the statement of objections for the first time the Bank narrates the amount of terminal benefits that are received by the family of the petitioner. The reason for rejection though does not form a part of the impugned endorsements, is on the ground that the family has received terminal benefits. The Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as follows:
"19. Insofar as the contention of the appellant Bank that since the respondent's family is getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of the 1993 Scheme says that in case the dependant of the deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the Bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal -9- NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR benefit is given, if the applicant is a minor, the Bank would keep the appointment open till the minor attains majority.
20. In Balbir Kaur v. SAIL [(2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] ,while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to. Rejecting that contention in para 13, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 503) "13. ... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family -- this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation."
21. Referring to SAIL case [(2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] , the High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the Bank that the respondents' family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
22. Considering the scope of the scheme "Dying in Harness Scheme 1993" then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant Bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference."
Therefore, in the light of the scheme and the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), the reason for rejection is erroneous and unsustainable.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SBI v. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"17. The respondent relied upon the following observations in SBI v. Jaspal Kaur [(2007) 9 SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578 : (2007) 1 CLR 947] to contend that he was entitled to be considered under the old Scheme which was in force at the time of the application by his mother: (SCC pp. 578-79, para
26) "26. Finally in the fact situation of this case, Shri Sukhbir Inder Singh (late), Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts) on 1-
8-1999, in the DhabWasti Ram, Amritsar Branch, passed away. The respondent, widow of Shri Sukhbir 14 Inder Singh applied for compassionate appointment in the appellant Bank
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR on 5-2- 2000 under the scheme which was formulated in 2005. The High Court also erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 4-8-2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decid ed on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of the deceased is Rs 5855 only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by late Shri Sukhbir Inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 Scheme does not hold water."
18. The said observations are read out of the context by the respondent. In that case the Bank employee died on 1-8- 1999. Application was filed by the widow on 5-2-2000. The case of the widow was considered twice and the request for appointment on compassionate grounds 15 was declined by taking into consideration the financial position/capacity of the family. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the widow in 2004 on the ground that the terminal benefits of Rs 4,57,607 received by the family were not sufficient for the sustenance of the family. In an appeal by the Bank, it was contended before this Court that in addition to Rs 4,57,607 paid as terminal benefits, the widow was getting Rs.2055 per month as family pension and that was not considered by the High Court. During the hearing before this Court, the widow relied upon the new Scheme dated 4-8-2005 and sought additional payment in terms of the scheme.
19. The above observations were made in the context of rejecting the widow's request for additional payment under
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR the 2005 Scheme. In fact, this Court allowed the Bank's appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the widow for additional benefits. The said observations, cannot therefore be of any assistance to consider the applicability of the old Scheme for compassionate appointment vis-à-vis the new Scheme for ex gratia payment.
20. The respondent was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. 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."
The judgment of the Apex Court is distinguishable on the facts of the case, as the Apex Court was considering a scheme for payment of ex gratia in lieu of appointment. In the case at hand, the scheme of payment of ex gratia is no doubt notified on 14.02.2005. The said scheme is now replaced with the scheme notified on 20.03.2015 and the application of the petitioner is given under this scheme. Therefore, reliance on the judgment by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank is unfounded and is unacceptable to me.
11. Therefore, the Bank is required to reconsider the application of the petitioner taking into consideration the facts narrated hereinabove and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.Mahesh Kumar (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR
(ii) Endorsements issued by respondent No.2 bearing No.MGC/HRM/2863/2017 dated 13.09.2017 and bearing No.MGC/HRM/6405/ 2017-18 dated 26.02.2018 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Bank to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order."
8. If the impugned order at Annexure J dated 25.05.2021 is examined in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.3509/2019 referred to supra, it becomes clear that the said directions have not been considered or appreciated properly by the first respondent while passing the impugned order which reads as under:
"We are in receipt of copy of the order passed by Hon'ble High Karnataka in Writ Petition No.3509/2019 and the matter has been re-examined.
We would like to inform you that the Bank had duly examined your request for Compassionate Appointment as per the Bank's Circular No.143/2015 dated0 20.03.2015. It is observed that you were not eligible for Compassionate Appointment under the said scheme and the same was communicated to you vide letter MGC HRM 2863 2017 dated 13.09.2017. Aggrieved by the decision, you had filed Writ Petition No.3509/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR Karnataka. The Hon'ble Court ordered to remit back the matter to the hands of the Bank to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Accordingly, the entire matter has been reexamined duly keeping in view the order dated 25.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 3509/2019. On re- examination of the matter it is observed that:
Late Sri Honnappa is survived by Spouse, you (son) and 3 daughters. One daughter is already married and other two daughters are working as Nurse earning Rs.12000/- and Rs.7000/- p.m respectively. You have done Engineering and have been appointed as Graduate Engineering Trainee in Paschim Hydro Energy Pvt Ltd, having a monthly income of Rs.11,711/-. It is further observed that the total family monthly income from all sources is Rs.49,254/-. Further, all the dependents are staying in own house. As such, it is observed that the financial condition of the dependent family is satisfactory and the family penury. In view of the above factors, your request for appointment under compassionate grounds has not been considered favourably."
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the impugned order not being in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in WP No.3509/2019, in order to enable the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15900 WP No. 13206 of 2021 HC-KAR respondents to reconsider the matter afresh bearing in mind the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned communication dated 25.05.2021 at Annexure-J and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned communication dated 25.05.2021 at Annexure-J is hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of the request for compassionate appointment sought for by the petitioner in accordance with law bearing in mind the directions issued by this Court in WP No.3509/2019 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18