Calcutta High Court
Sudip Pradhan vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 24 March, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
WPO 544 of 2021
Sudip Pradhan
-Vs-
Punjab National Bank & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Sanyal
Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri
For the Respondents : Mr. S.M. Obaidullah
Mr. Roni Chowdhury
Heard on : 05.12.2026
Judgment on : 24.03.2026
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
1. The petitioner sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
challenging inter alia, the actions of the respondent authorities in not
appointing him on compassionate grounds in terms of the Circular of the
Respondent No.1 being No. PD(DIR)/COMAPPNT/18/OM-0408/14-15 dated
20th October 2014.
2. The petitioner’s father, Late Sudhir Kumar Pradhan functioned as Daptary,
permanently employed by the respondent No. 1. After rendering 31 years
and 11 months of service, he expired on 3rd April 2015 while in employment
of the Respondent No. 1.
2
3. Late Sudhir Kumar Pradhan was the primary provider of his family
consisting of himself, his wife and unemployed son and his absence left
them to lurch in financial destitution. The wife and son being impecunious,
applied to the respondents for employment under the Died in Harness
scheme floated by the Bank in terms of PD(DIR)/COMAPPNT/18/OM-
0408/14-15 dated 20th October 2014. The application for employment was
received by the Bank on 9th November 2015.
4. The petitioner bereft of a Class-X pass certificate sought employment
however later on cleared the Class-X examination from Jharkhand State
Open School.
5. The respondent No. 2 replied on 9 th March 2016 to the effect that – “On
perusal, it has been observed that you have failed Madhyamik examination
whereas as per cadre is Class-X passes.” The letter was devoid of reference to
any order of the Chairman cum managing Director of the Bank rejecting the
petitioner’s application.
6. The Scheme of the Bank for compassionate appointment did not provide for
any eligibility criteria regarding education qualification of the candidate but
the Circular for compassionate appointment dated 7 th November 2007 being
Circular No. PD(DIR) / DIR/14/OM – 0506/07-08 provided in Clause 6 the
eligibility criteria for subordinate cadre posts to be Class – VIII passed.
7. The petitioner applied under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act to the
Public Information of the Bank on 20th July 2017 seeking for the supply of
the circular which provided the entry level for the recruitment in subordinate
cadre to be Class-X and the answer provided by the Principal Public
3
Information Officer by his information dated 4 th August 2017 was – “Your
candidature was considered and rejected, as per extant recruitment policy for
appointment in subordinate category.” The second query of the petitioner in
his application which was – “The date, if any and the extract of the resolution
of the Board of Directors of UBI adopting the terms of the circular above, if
such circular was issued by any authority other than the Board of Directors of
the UBI” met with a totally evasive reply which attempted to conceal the
truth.
8. The answer received from the Principal Public Information Officer under the
Right to Information Act revealed of absence of circular issued by the Board
of Directors of the Bank – the final authority framing service conditions of
the Bank’s employees. It had been contended the impugned letter of refusal
therefore was not based upon the existing educational eligibility criteria
otherwise the Principal Public Information Officer would have supplied the
extract of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors raising the
educational eligibility criteria of sub staffs to Class X passed.
9. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting the application
of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds in terms of the
existing circular being PD(DIR)/COMAPPNT/18/OM-0408/14-15 dated 20 th
October 2014 the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High
Court, Calcutta being W.P. No. 516 of 2017 (Sudip Pradhan vs. United Bank
of India & another) challenging inter alia the legality and validity of the order
of the respondent no 2 dated 9th March, 2016.
4
10. The said writ petition being W. P. No.516 of 2017 was disposed of directing
the competent authority to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for
appointment strictly in accordance with the extant Scheme. It was further
directed at the time of consideration of the prayer of the petitioner the
competent authority should keep in mind the primary objective of the
scheme to provide financial aid to the distressed dependent of the deceased.
11. The erstwhile United Bank of India preferred an appeal being A.P.O.T. No
145 of 2019 against the said judgment and order dated 04.09.2019 and on
28th January 2020 the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to dispose of the
appeal and the stay application by directing the competent authority to
“reconsider the prayer of the writ petitioner as to whether the recommendation
of the Khandelwal Committee was actually implemented by the Bank prior to
31stMay 2016 and in the event it was not implemented and applied to
persons similarly placed as that of the writ petitioner, to extend the benefit of
the Recruitment Policy of 22nd October 2005 to the writ petitioner. … The entire
exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from date.”
12. The order of the Hon’ble Court was served upon the Bank and order dated
4th March 2020 being Ref: PA(AS)/N-60/185/2020 was sent to the
petitioner and the Hon’ble Division Bench’s order was evaded by the Chief
Manager P. A (AS) explicitly as follows:-
“In deference to the solemn directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench,
Calcutta High Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.01.2020 passed
in GA No. 2691 of 2019 (APOT No. 145 of 2019), the Competent Authority
of the Bank has examined as to whether any appointment under
5
Compassionate Appointment Scheme has been made by the Bank as perrecruitment policy of 22nd October, 2005, where the minimum educational
qualification prescribed for Award Staff employee was Class VIII pass.
The compassionate appointment scheme of the Bank was made effective
from 05.08.2014. hence, the bank has verified all the appointments made
by the Bank on compassionate ground for the period from 05.08.2014 to
31.05.2016 (the date directed the Hon’ble Court) and on examination it
was found that the Bank had followed the minimum educational
qualification criteria of Class X pass in all compassionate appointment
cases during the said period.
Since, the Bank had followed the minimum educational criteria of Class X
pass for all appointments made under compassionate ground during the
period from 05.08.2014 to 31.05.2016, we do not find any need to
favourably consider your application of compassionate appointment as you
were not having the required qualification to be considered to the post of
Sub-staff in the Bank during the said period and accordingly, your prayer
for compassionate appointment is hereby, rejected.”
13. The Chief Manager in his impugned order overreached the Hon’ble Court’s
order by stating no person was recruited under similar circumstances
evading the question as to whether the recommendation of the Khandelwal
committee had actually been implemented prior to 31.05.2016. A circular of
the Bank by which Group D part time employee were absorbed as House
keeper cum Sub Staff in the Bank. Circular No. PA(AS) / ELEVATION
/4/OM-715/15-16 dated 20.02.2016 was for the absorption of such
6
employees wherein the educational qualification of the employee for the
elevation was not mentioned. At the relevant point of time, the recruitees
possessed Class-X pass certificate for appointment in Group-D post of sub-
staff.
14. The Learned Advocate representing petitioner submitted as follows:-
i. The petitioner’s father, being employed as Daptary with the Bank
died while in service on 03.04.2015 and the petitioner applied for
Compassionate Appointment on 09.11.2015. During this period the
scheme of appointment of the Bank was regulated by Bank’s Circular
dated 20.10.2014 being PD(DIR)/COMAPPNT/18/OM-0408/14-15.
The petitioner’s application was rejected as he had not passed Class-
X. No consideration was made about the payment of lump sum ex
gratia as contemplated in the scheme. The petitioner made an
application under the Right to Information Act but the application
was rejected on frivolous grounds not within the ambit of the said
Act. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a writ Petition before this
Hon’ble Court being W.P. No. 516 of 2017 and the said writ petition
was allowed by a judgment and order dated 04.09.2019. The
respondent Bank preferred an appeal against such judgment and
order being A.P.O. T. No. 145 of 2019. The Hon’ble Division Bench by
a Judgment and order dated 28.01.2020 concurred with the
judgment of the Single Bench.
7
ii. The respondent Bank thereafter, by an order dated 04.03.2020 again
rejected the application of the petitioner but did not consider the
payment of lump sum ex gratia.
iii. It was evident from the circular of 20.10.2014 that the scheme was
made applicable from 05.08.2014. The eligibility criteria
contemplated under the said circular for Clerical and Sub-staff Cadre
was “only subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria such as educational
qualification, age, etc. as prescribed in the recruitment Rules/Policy of
the Bank for recruitment under Clerical and Sub-staff Cadre and as
may be amended from time to time”. Since the educational
qualification was not mentioned in the said circular of 2014 one had
to look into the earlier circular dated 07.11.2007 being Circular No.
PD(DIR)/DIR/14/OM-0506/07-08.
iv. In the said circular of 2007 the educational qualification for
subordinate post was “must have passed Class-VIII Examination but
must not have passed Class-XII.”
v. To avoid the effect of the policy of 2007 which provided for an
educational qualification of Class -VIII, it was argued before the
Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court that the Bank was following the
Khandelwal Committee Report from 2011. The Hon’ble Division
Bench noticed that “as desired by the Government of India and as
approved by the Board of Directors, its meeting held on 26.01.2016…
(Clause 2 Page 77. “Minimum educational qualification in direct
recruitment in Sub-staff Cadre required will be Class-X passed and
8
Class – XII not passed”. The Hon’ble Division Bench also noticed that“the minutes of the meeting on 25.06.2016 have noted the earlier
recommendations”. It was further noticed by the Division Bench that
the “aforesaid resolution on the recruitment policy makes it clear that
the Board of Directors has noted the modifications that were made by
the Bank in the recruitment policy earlier and had only approved the
modification that was introduced in the recruitment policy as amended
on 31.05.2016. However, it cannot be disregarded that the agenda
was approved by the resolution on 29.06.2016…..”. It was further held
by the Hon’ble Division “although the Bank has disclosed various
resolutions to show that they have taken resolutions on the basis of the
recommendation of the Khandelwal Committee, but there was no
comprehensive recruitment policy for Officers, Clerks and Sub-ordinate
Staffs published by the Bank prior to 31.05.2016.”
vi. The direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench further observed:-
“Under the circumstances, we direct the competent authority to
reconsider the prayer of the writ petitioner as to whether the
recommendation of the Khandelwal Committee was actually
implement by the Bank prior to 31st May, 2016 and in the event it
was not implemented and applied to persons similarly placed as
that of the writ petitioner, to extend the benefit of the Recruitment
Policy of 22nd October 2005 to the writ petitioner. We are making
this observation in view of the fact that in the Resolution dated 29th
June 2016. The Board of Directors noted and approved the revised
9
Recruitment Policy which gives an impression that therecommendation of the Khandelwal Committee earlier may not have
been implemented”. The words “may not have been implemented”
were important. The Bank therefore had to show by cogent
evidence that the revised policy had been implemented earlier.
vii. The Hon’ble Division Bench opined the qualification of Class -X was
not introduced prior to the resolution of the Board of Directors dated
29th June, 2016 therefore when the petitioner applied on 9 th
November, 2016 (the application was received by the Bank on that
day) the eligibility criteria of Class- X pass was non-existence and the
Recruitment Policy of 22nd October, 2005, which was witnessed in
the Bank’s Circular of 2007 (supra) was in vogue. The Bank was
really manipulating the dates only for the purpose of depriving the
petitioner. Thus the information under the Right to Information Act
was rejected on the specious ground that such information could be
withheld under the Information Act which in fact was illegal because
no such ground can been taken under the said Act for refusing
information.
viii. The order of rejection did not mention anything about the acceptance
of the Khandelwal Committee’s report before 31 st May 2016. It
avoided any reference to the direction of the order of the Hon’ble
Division Bench. It did not answer the question at all rather it
browbeaten the issue.
10
ix. In the affidavit-in-Opposition of the Bank a reference had been made
to a meeting of 29.03.2011 but this was not at all the case before the
Hon’ble Division Bench on the contrary the Board approved the
Khandelwal Committee’s report in May, 2016 as had been noticed by
the Hon’ble Division Bench. It was evident from the Recruitment
Policy as annexed to the said affidavit in opposition that there was no
date and no number of the said notification. The said notification, as
annexed, denoted of educational qualification of sub-ordinate
employee thus “between 18 and 26 years as per Govt. of India letter F.
No.4/1/3/98-IR dated 26.05.1998 as on the dated indent. For SC/ST
candidates maximum age relaxation will be allowed ….” (Page 12, 3.4,
A/O). There was no mention whatsoever of the purported resolution
of the Board dated 29.03.2011 as alleged nor of the resolution of the
Board of Directors dated 31st May, 2016. In fact it spoke of the Govt.
of India letter F.No.4/1/3/98-IR dated 26.05.1998. The Hon’ble
Single Bench noticed this particular circular and had come to the
finding that no such recruitment policy prescribing the minimum
educational qualification of Class-X pass for appointment in the sub-
staff cadre had been produced before this court. The recruitment
policy which had been annexed with the affidavit in opposition
though mentioned a candidate ought to possess the educational
qualification of passing Class-X for obtaining appointment in the sub-
staff category but the said recruitment policy did not bear any date.
The said recruitment policy appeared to be a part of a bunch of
11
documents. Only pages 21 to 24 of the said bunch had been annexed
with the affidavit in opposition. Inspite of directions the entire set of
documents was not produced before the court. As no date was
provided on the said circular it was not possible for the court to come
to a conclusion whether the said circular was at all applicable in the
case of the petitioner. The court was left wondering as to whether the
said circular was in existence when the application of the petitioner
was taken up for consideration. The said letter of the Gout. of India
being F.No 4/1/3/98-IR dated 26.05.1998 was no more in force
owing to an amendment by the Bank itself as was notice in the
Scheme of 2007 and noticed by the Division Bench that the
Recruitment Policy of 22 October 2005 was in force.
x. It is submitted the Bank had failed to show, by reliable cogent
evidence, that prior to the noting and approval of the Board of
directors dated 29th June 2016 there was any other amendment to
the policy. In view of the failure of the Bank to show such
amendment, the Recruitment Policy of 22 nd October 2005 was in
force and the petitioner was entitled as on the date of his application
to the benefit of such recruitment policy which provided an
educational qualification of Class-VIII pass for recruitment to the
cadre of sub-staff.
12
15. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent-Bank submitted as
follows:-
i. The Board of Directors of the United Bank of India had approved the
recommendation of the Khandelwal Committee in the board meeting
dated 29.03.2011, wherein, it was prescribed that the minimum
educational qualification for award staff employee in the bank to be
Class-X pass.
ii. In view of the direction of the Division Bench, the bank was to verify as
to whether any appointment under compassionate appointment claim
had been made by the Bank as per recruitment policy dated
22.10.2005 and whether the minimum educational qualification for
the award staff employee was Class-VIII pass. The said claim for
compassionate appointment in the bank was made effective from
06.08.2014.
iii. In the light of the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the bank
had duly verified the records of the PAAS Department from 05.08.2014
to 31.05.2016 and, it was found that the bank had followed the
minimum educational qualification criteria of Class X pass for
appointment scheme of the bank. Therefore, the claim of the writ
petitioner cannot be entertained since the bank has followed minimum
educational qualification of Class X standard for the aforesaid period.
iv. At the time of applying for compassionate appointment on 09.10.2015,
the petitioner did not pass Class-X. The entry level qualification for
subordinate cadre was enumerated in Part-III of the recruitment policy
13
of the respondent bank. The educational qualification for employment
as sub-staff had been specified in the recruitment policy as follows: –
“Educational Qualification:
Sub-staff:
Minimum- Class X pass
Maximum Class XI standard not pass
Candidates Who have passed Class XII annual examination
will not be considered for the job”
v. The Bank’s Scheme for compassionate appointment had categorically
mentioned that the applicant should be eligible and suitable for the
post in all respect under the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. It
was further stated that the purported certificate dated 27.06.2016
relating to Class-X pass from Jharkhand State Open School clearly
substantiated the stand taken by the Bank as the certificate of passing
Class-X was in the year 2016.
vi. Since the writ petitioner was not having required qualification for the
post of sub-staff as per the said recruitment policy, the Bank had
rejected the said representation dated 09.10.2015 regarding
employment under died-in-harness scheme by reference dated
09.09.2016 In the said reference, it was clearly mentioned that, on
perusal, it had been observed that the petitioner failed Madhyamik
Examination, whereas, as per the extant circular, the entry level
qualification for recruitment in subordinate cadre was Class-X pass
14
and, on that ground, the application of the writ petitioner was rejected
on 09.03.2016.
vii. The writ petitioner had admitted in paragraph 5 of the writ petition
that he had not passed in Class-X Examination when he sought for
employment from United Bank of India in the year 2015 and later on,
he had passed Class-X Examination from Jharkhand State Open
School in the year 2016. Therefore, the petitioner was already aware
about the fact that the minimum qualification for the post of sub-staff
was Class-X passed and at the time of death of the deceased employee
as also the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner
did not pass Class-X standard. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment was not entertained.
viii. The minimum qualification of a sub-staff is Class-X pass. The
petitioner had not qualified Class-X examination before applying for
compassionate appointment.
ix. Pursuant to the solemn direction passed by the Division Bench of this
Hon’ble Court on 28.01.2020 in A.P O.T.No. 145 of 2019, the
competent authority of United Bank of India had examined as to
whether any appointment under compassionate appointment claim
had been made by the bank as per recruitment policy dated
22.10.2005 and whether the minimum educational qualification for
the award staff employee was Class-VIlI pass. The said claim for
compassionate appointment in the bank was made effective from
05.08.2014. The bank had duly verified the records of the PAAS
15
Department from 05.08.2014 to 31.05.2016 as directed by the Division
Bench of this Hon’ble Court and, it was found that the Bank had
followed the minimum educational qualification criteria of Class-X
pass in all compassionate appointment cases during the said period.
The Bank had followed the minimum educational qualification as
Class-X pass for all appointments made under compassionate ground
from 05.08.2014 to 31.05.2016. Therefore, the Bank had rejected the
claim of the petitioner.
x. The said order dated 04.03.2020 was passed in compliance with the
order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court.
xi. The case of the writ petitioner was considered in view of the solemn
order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 28.01.2020 and the writ
petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment.
xii. The petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that he had
not passed Class-X examination at the time of applying for
compassionate appointment. It was also submitted by circular dated
20.10, 2014 it was clearly mentioned that the Bank had forwarded a
revised model scheme advising the Chief Executive of PSBS to adopt
the same for compassionate appointment in the Public Sector Bank on
compassionate ground, but, after due approval of the Board of
Directors of the respective public sector bank. In the said circular, it
was clearly mentioned as follows:-
16
a) “To open compassionate appointment in PSBS on the lines of
Central Government;
b) Discontinue the provisions of ex gratia in lieu of compassionate
appointment in PSBS;
The scheme shall be applicable from 05.08.2014.”
xiii. From the aforesaid scheme, it was submitted the provisions of ex gratia
was already discontinued on and with effect from 05.08.2014 i.e. the
date of applicability of the said scheme.
xiv. It was further submitted the aforesaid claim that the father of the writ
petitioner expired on 03.04.2015 and the writ petitioner had applied for
compassionate appointment on 09.10.2015 and at that point of time the
scheme for compassionate appointment of the Bank was applicable
from 05.08.2014. Therefore, the said scheme dated 20.10.2014 was
squarely applicable on and with effect from 05.08.2014 in this case and
the writ petitioner was not entitled to any ex gratia in lieu of
compassionate appointment since the said provisions had already been
discontinued on and with effect from 05.08.2014.
xv. The scheme for compassionate appointment came into force from
05.08.2014. Clause 2 of the said Scheme dated 05.08.2014 stated as
follows: –
“(2) Short title and…
a) The scheme will be called as claim for compassionate
appointment’ in the bank.
17
b) The claim for compassionate appointment in the
bank (hereinafter referred to as the said claim) shall come into
effect from 05.08.2014 as also the claim for payment of
exgratia lumpsum in lieu of compassionate appointment in the
bank in certain cases on compassionate ground shall remain
discontinued on and with effect from 05.08.2014.”
xvi. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appeared the payment of
ex gratia lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment had already
been discontinued on and with effect from 05.08.2014. The father of
the petitioner expired on 03.03.2015. Therefore, the petitioner was
covered by the said Scheme and was not entitled to any ex gratia in
lieu of compassionate appointment.
xvii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in a decision
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661(Pr. 13) [SBI Vs. Raj Kumar] that
compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the
employer may and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme
or modify the scheme at anytime disputing upon its policies, financial
capacity and availability of posts.
xviii. It was further submitted the above judgment of the Hon’ble Court was
squarely applicable in this case and the writ petitioner was not entitled
for any relief.
xix. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed in a decision reported in
(2009) 13 SCC 112, [Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Anil Badyakar &
Ors.] that the compassionate appointed had not been a vested right.
18
16. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the
refusal of the respondent Bank to extend the benefit of compassionate
appointment under its died-in-harness scheme. It had been contended at the
outset the petitioner’s father Sudhir Kumar Pradhan, a permanent employee
of the bank, rendered long and irreproachable service for over three decades
before his demise on 3 April 2015, being still in service. His death left the
family, comprising his widow and unemployed son, in a state of acute
financial vulnerability, the deceased being the only source of sustenance.
17. In the aftermath of such bereavement, the family approached the bank
seeking compassionate appointment in terms of the applicable Circular
dated 20th October 2014. The application duly received was rejected by the
respondent authority primarily on the ground that the petitioner had not
passed the Class X examination at the relevant time. Indisputably, that the
petitioner subsequently acquired the said qualification.
18. The materials on record, further disclosed an apparent incongruity in the
stand of the respondent bank. While the rejection letter predicated the
decision on the requirement of Class X qualification, the earlier circular
governing subordinate cadre posts prescribed a significantly lower threshold
viz. Class VIII pass qualification. The petitioner’s endeavour to obtain clarity
through proceedings under the Right to Information Act responses were
evasive and failed to substantiate the existence of any binding resolution of
the Board of directors mandating the higher qualification.
19. In a prior round of litigation, this Hon’ble Court had directed reconsideration
of the petitioner’s claim, emphasizing that the primary objective of
19
compassionate appointment was to provide immediate succour to the
bereaved family. Notwithstanding such direction, the Bank in its subsequent
decision reiterated the earlier rejection ostensibly, relying on a uniform
practice of insisting about Class X qualification during a specified period.
20. What a assumed significance was the petitioner’s contention, fortified by
reference to internal circular that similarly situated individuals were
absorbed in subordinate positions without adherence to the requirement of
Class ‘X’ pass qualification.
21. In the conspectus of the materials placed before this Court, the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the trajectory of the
earlier proceedings culminating in the directions of the Hon’ble Division
Bench, the issue that falls for determination had been narrow yet of
considerable significance as to whether the respondent Bank had been able
to demonstrably establish that the insistence on a Class X qualification
forms part of a duly sanctioned and operative policy at the time when the
petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment had been considered.
22. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that compassionate
appointment is not a matter of right but concession, structured within the
framework of the governing scheme. Equally, it is well entrenched that such
schemes being beneficial in nature must be administered with fairness,
transparency, and fidelity to the avowed object of providing immediate
succour and financial relief to an economically destitute and bereaved
family.
20
23. In the present case, while the respondent Bank had sought to justify its
decision by placing reliance on an alleged policy prescribing Class X, as the
minimum qualification, the materials relied upon in support thereof did not
inspire the requisite degree of confidence. The absence of a
contemporaneous, duly authenticated policy document demonstrating the
enforceability of such criteria prior to 31st May 2016, coupled with reliance
on undated and fragmentary records, rendered the decision-making process,
vulnerable to the charge of arbitrariness.
24. What assumed greater significance had been the prior direction of the
Hon’ble Division Bench, which cast clear obligation upon the respondent
Bank to ascertain and demonstrate whether the recommendations of the
Khandelwal Committee had in fact being implemented prior to the said cut-
off date and in the event of failure to do so to extend the benefit of the earlier
recruitment policy to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 4 th March
2020 on scrutiny does not reflect a purposive compliance with such
direction, but rather a reiteration of the earlier stance objectified by the
respondent Bank without addressing the core issue.
25. The plea of uniform application of the Class X pass criteria during the
relevant period, even if accepted, cannot supplant the requirement of
establishing the legal provenance of such criterion. Uniformity in practice
cannot validate a norm whose statutory or policy foundation remains
unsubstantiated.
26. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the rejection of
the practitioner’s application on the sole ground of non-possession of a
21
Class-X qualification without demonstrable proof of such requirement,
forming part of a valid and enforceable policy at the relevant time cannot be
sustained in law.
27. Accordingly, the order dated 4th March 2020 is set aside.
28. The matter is remitted to the competent authority of the respondent bank for
fresh consideration of the petitioner’s claim for such compassion
appointment strictly in the light and observations and in compliance with
the directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench, particularly on the aspect as to
whether the revised policy had been implemented prior to 31 st May 2016 in
reference to the recommendation of the Khandelwal Committee. Moreover,
the respondent Bank authorities in case of adherence to their earlier
decision will produce a record depicting the details of staff to have been
recruited during the period irrespectively as claimed by the petitioner to
ascertain as to whether similarly circumstanced candidates were granted
appointment in exclusion of the petitioner.
29. A further clarification with documentary support, be provided to the
petitioner as to the reasons on non-grant of ex gratia lumpsum in lieu of
compassionate appointment in view of the date of effectivity and/or expiry of
the Scheme governing such grant of ex gratia payment.
30. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from
the date of communication of this order, and the reasoned decision shall be
communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
22
31. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
ultimate entitlement of the petitioner and the competent authority shall take
an independent decision in accordance with law.
32. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being WPO 544 of 2021 stands
disposed of.
33. There is no order as to costs.
34. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the
parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities .
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)
