Allahabad HC Slaps Rs. 1 Lakh Costs on SBI for Inaction on Compassionate Appointment Plea
Despite receiving the representation in January 2020, SBI failed to act for over five years
The Allahabad High Court emphasizes that compassionate appointments aren't a vested right
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by one Prinsu Singh, who had sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a State Bank of India employee.
While deciding against the petitioner on account of delay and laches, court took serious note of the bank’s failure to process his representation in time and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh against it.
The petitioner’s father was dismissed from service in 2006, but the dismissal was subsequently set aside by the labour court in 2015, which ordered reinstatement with full back wages. That award, however, was stayed by the High Court in 2016, and the challenge remains pending. During the pendency of the matter, the petitioner’s father passed away in December 2019 while still in service.
Seeking relief, the petitioner’s mother applied for a compassionate appointment on his behalf on January 24, 2020, within six months of the employee’s death. A second reminder was made on April 4, 2025. The petitioner claimed that he had been pursuing his education until 2021 and was thereafter engaged in family litigation, which explained the delay in actively pursuing the matter.
Court, however, held that the very purpose of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate financial relief to families of deceased employees.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized that such appointments are an exception to the constitutional mandate of public recruitment and can only be justified on grounds of urgent financial need. “Delay in filing of the application or laches in instituting a writ petition raises a presumption that financial crises being faced by the family of the deceased have ceased to exist,” court observed.
The SBI scheme of 2021, relied upon by the petitioner, did allow for some relaxation where a dependent is still pursuing education. But court found that the petitioner had already completed his graduation in 2021 and had not enrolled in any higher studies thereafter. Instead, he had chosen to pursue family litigation. This conduct, the court held, demonstrated that there was no pressing financial crisis justifying a compassionate appointment.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K.(2025), court reiterated that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and must be sought immediately after the death of an employee or within a reasonable period. Prolonged delays undermine the very rationale of such schemes and convert them into a hereditary form of recruitment, which the constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16 does not permit.
While dismissing the petition, court did not spare the bank either. It noted that despite having received the petitioner’s representation in 2020, the SBI authorities failed to decide the matter expeditiously, thereby failing in their duty as a model employer.
For this lapse, court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the bank, directing it to be paid to the petitioner within two months.
Case Title: Prinsu Singh vs. Union Of India And 2 Others
Judgment Date: September 25, 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot