State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari
In short. The case revolves around the petition filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) against Sheo Shankar Tewari concerning the denial of a compassionate appointment following the death of Tewari's father, who was an employee of SBI. The core issue was whether the bank's new scheme for ex-gratia payments, which replaced the compassionate appointment scheme, could retroactively affect Tewari's application made prior to the new scheme's implementation. The Supreme Court upheld the bank's decision, affirming that the compassionate appointment scheme had been abolished and that Tewari's application could not be considered under the new framework.
Facts
- The respondent's father was employed by SBI and passed away on November 11, 2004.
- Tewari applied for a compassionate appointment on March 3, 2005, when the compassionate appointment scheme was still in effect.
- On July 14, 2004, the Government of India issued instructions to frame a scheme for monetary assistance in lieu of compassionate appointments.
- SBI approved a new scheme for ex-gratia payments on August 4, 2005, which explicitly stated that the compassionate appointment scheme would be abolished.
- Tewari's application was not considered due to the implementation of the new scheme, leading him to challenge the bank's decision through a writ petition, which was accepted by the Single Judge and later by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioners (SBI) argued that
- The compassionate appointment scheme was formally abolished with the introduction of the new ex-gratia payment scheme.
- Tewari's application could not be entertained as it was submitted after the new scheme came into effect.
- They relied on the precedent set in , which established that compassionate appointments are not a right but a concession that can be withdrawn.
The court addressed these arguments by emphasizing the legal validity of the new scheme and the absence of a vested right for Tewari under the previous scheme.
Respondent Arguments
The respondent (Tewari) contended that
- His application for compassionate appointment was made before the new scheme was implemented, and thus should be considered under the old rules.
- The abrupt change in policy deprived him of his legitimate expectation for a compassionate appointment.
The court countered these arguments by affirming that the bank had the authority to amend its policies and that Tewari's application fell under the purview of the new scheme, which had been duly communicated.
Precedents considered
The court cited (2010) to support its decision. This precedent clarified that:
- Compassionate appointments are not a source of recruitment but a concession to help families of deceased employees.
- The employer has the discretion to frame and amend schemes for such appointments, and applicants do not possess an inherent right to employment outside the provisions of the applicable scheme.
Legal principles
The court considered the following legal principles
- The nature of compassionate appointments as a discretionary concession rather than an entitlement.
- The validity of policy changes by employers regarding recruitment and appointment schemes.
- The principle that applicants must adhere to the rules in effect at the time their applications are processed.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that
- The bank's decision to abolish the compassionate appointment scheme was legitimate and in accordance with the new policy framework.
- Tewari's application was rightly not considered as it was submitted after the new scheme's implementation, which clearly stated that no requests for compassionate appointments would be entertained thereafter.
- The court highlighted the importance of adhering to established policies and the lack of a vested right for applicants under previous schemes.
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Tewari, upholding the bank's decision to deny the compassionate appointment. The court did not provide specific instructions for an appeal process, as the decision was final.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the principle that employers have the authority to amend their recruitment policies, particularly concerning compassionate appointments. It underscores the discretionary nature of such appointments and clarifies that applicants must comply with the rules in effect at the time of their application. The ruling has significant implications for future cases involving compassionate appointments and employer policy changes.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.