Married Son Cannot Be Rejected for Compassionate Appointment Only Because He Is Married: Patna HC
The Patna High Court has quashed an order of the Central Bank of India rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment made by the married son of a deceased employee.
The Bank had rejected the appointment as the son was married. The Court said that the Bank’s own Scheme for compassionate appointment defines a dependent family member as a ‘wholly dependent son’ without any requirement that he be unmarried, and that the Bank cannot import that requirement from outside the Scheme [Sintu Kumar v. Central Bank of India and Others].
The petitioner’s mother had served the Central Bank of India as a Safai Karamchari for more than 21 years before dying in harness in March 2024. He applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, and by an order of August 2025 the Zonal Head rejected the application mainly on the ground that, being married, he could not be considered wholly dependent on the deceased employee. The petitioner challenged that rejection in the court.
The Bank’s Scheme entitles a dependent family member of a permanent employee dying in service to compassionate appointment. The Scheme defines a dependent family member to include a ‘wholly dependent son’, and that it draws no distinction between a married and an unmarried son.
The Bank said that the compassionate-appointment Scheme does not define the term “wholly dependent son.” Therefore, it referred to other Bank rules and documents to understand the meaning.
The Bank relied on the Central Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. These regulations define children in a family as “wholly dependent unmarried children.” The Bank also referred to its Group Health Insurance Policy for serving staff, which uses a similar definition. It further relied on a memorandum of settlement and FAQs issued by the Indian Banks’ Association, which stated that the meaning of “wholly dependent” under the bipartite settlement should be used to determine dependency.
Based on these documents, the Bank argued that the son had to be unmarried to qualify for compassionate appointment. Therefore, it said that rejecting the application because the son was married was correct.
Court Rejects Bank’s Arguments
The Court rejected the Bank’s arguments one by one. First, the Court said that the 1979 Service Regulations applied to the Bank’s officers. However, the petitioner’s mother had worked as a full-time Safai Karamchari. Therefore, the definition of family under those regulations, which referred to “wholly dependent unmarried children,” could not be applied to the petitioner’s case.
Second, the Court rejected the Bank’s reliance on its Group Health Insurance Policy. The policy was meant for health insurance benefits for serving employees and had a different purpose. Therefore, its definition could not be used to decide eligibility for compassionate appointment.
Third, the Court considered the FAQs issued by the Indian Banks’ Association. The Court noted that these FAQs were issued in connection with an earlier 2014 circular. However, Central Bank of India later introduced its own compassionate-appointment Scheme in April 2015.
2015 Scheme Must Be Read As It Is
The Court held that the April 2015 Scheme was a complete scheme in itself. Therefore, its definition of “dependent family member” had to be understood as it was written. The Bank could not add words or conditions from other rules and documents that were not included in its own compassionate-appointment Scheme.
The Court specifically held:
“…the respondent-Bank cannot be permitted to introduce the word ‘unmarried’ in the definition of ‘dependent family member’ in their scheme of compassionate appointment.”
Court Says Bank Cannot Add “Unmarried”
The Court found the difference in the wording of the various documents important. The 1979 Regulations and the health insurance policy referred to “wholly dependent unmarried children.” However, the compassionate-appointment Scheme simply referred to a “wholly dependent son” and a “wholly dependent daughter.”
According to the Court, this showed that the word “unmarried” was deliberately not included in the compassionate-appointment Scheme. Therefore, the Bank could not add the word “unmarried” later and use it as a reason to reject the petitioner’s claim.
Court Orders Fresh Consideration
The Court also noted that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of a deceased employee. The Scheme did not make any separate distinction between a married and unmarried son or daughter.
The Court therefore held that the Bank had wrongly rejected the petitioner’s application because the petitioner was married. The Court set aside the rejection order and directed the Bank to reconsider the petitioner’s case according to the Scheme and the Court’s observations. The Bank was directed to complete the process within three months.
Why the Judgment Matters
The judgment makes it clear that when a compassionate-appointment scheme does not contain a particular restriction, the Bank cannot add that restriction by relying on definitions from other rules or policies.
In this case, the Scheme used the words “wholly dependent son” and did not say “wholly dependent unmarried son.” Therefore, the Bank could not treat being married as an automatic reason for rejecting the claim.
Importantly, the Court did not directly order the Bank to appoint the petitioner. Instead, it ordered the Bank to reconsider the application under the actual terms of the Scheme.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
