The Madras High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by G Chitra, challenging the denial of compassionate appointment by the Punjab National Bank following the death of her father, who served as Head Cashier in the Union Bank of India before its merger with PNB. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment after her father's demise on November 30, 2015, but her application was rejected on the ground that she was married before the date of death and thus did not qualify as a dependent under the bank's policy.
The court, presided over by Justice C Kumarappan, observed that the authorities had based their denial solely on the fact that the petitioner was married in July 2013, more than two years prior to her father's death, and was residing separately from him at the time of his demise. The court found this reasoning to be flawed and discriminatory, noting that marriage and separate residence do not automatically negate dependency, particularly when the separation arose due to external factors such as water and drainage problems at the parental home, as acknowledged in the counter filed by the respondents.
The court reiterated that the determination of dependency for compassionate appointment must be made in accordance with the policy prevailing at the time of the employee's death. It pointed out that the authorities had erroneously applied an amendment that came into effect in 2020-21 to a case where the death occurred in 2015, which was legally impermissible. The benefit, the court held, must be assessed under the rules in force on the date of death, not subsequent modifications.
Justice Kumarappan emphasized that the mere fact that the petitioner's husband was earning could not be construed as conclusive proof that she was not wholly dependent on her father. The court rejected the argument that compassionate appointment should be withheld due to the availability of other meritorious candidates, stating that such considerations cannot override the humanitarian intent of the scheme, which is to provide relief to families bereaved of their earning member.
The bench further observed that the authorities' stance reflected an outdated understanding of familial dependency, ignoring contemporary social realities where married daughters may still rely on parental support for various reasons, including financial, emotional, or situational constraints. To deny benefit solely on the ground of marriage, the court said, was arbitrary and contrary to human values, amounting to overt discrimination against the petitioner.
In conclusion, the court set aside the order passed by the HRD Department of Punjab National Bank rejecting the petitioner's application. It directed the bank to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The court also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the respondents, to be paid to the petitioner.
The case was argued by Mr Y Solomon for the petitioner and Mr P Raghunathan, counsel for M/s T S Gopalan & Co, appearing for the respondents.