Legal Heirs of a deceased employee can’t apply for compassionate appointment if a major penalty was imposed on the employee
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the legal heirs of a deceased employee cannot apply for a compassionate appointment if a major penalty was imposed on the employee and is still recorded at the time of their death. However, if the penalty only had an impact for a short period of time, such as a few years, and the employee’s service was otherwise satisfactory after that, they may still be eligible for compassionate appointment.
In this case, the petitioner’s father had received a major penalty (the exact nature of which was not specified) that lasted for two years. After this period, the petitioner’s father was promoted to the position of Manager at the Union Bank of India, Branch Collectrate in Mau, Uttar Pradesh. Later, he was promoted again to Deputy Branch Head at a branch in Amiliya, District Rewa, Uttar Pradesh.
When the petitioner’s father passed away, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment. However, the application was rejected due to the deceased’s unsatisfactory service record, which was assessed according to the Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that since the deceased received promotions, his overall service should not be considered unsatisfactory.
Justice Ajay Bhanot, in his order, referenced a 2017 modification to the Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds. This modification stated that a request for compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment could be denied if a major penalty had been imposed on the employee during their service, or if there was a pending disciplinary action at the time of the employee’s death that could have led to a major penalty.
The court noted that the disqualification only applies if the major penalty was still on record at the time of the employee’s death. In this case, the penalty imposed on the petitioner’s father no longer had an adverse impact after his promotions. As a result, the court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner’s application was not justified.
The court ordered that the authorities should reconsider the petitioner’s application for a compassionate appointment and make a fresh decision.
