The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the State Bank of India in a case where the bank had failed to decide a representation for compassionate appointment for several years. The petitioner’s father had died while in service in 2019, and he submitted an application through his mother in 2020 seeking compassionate appointment. Despite repeated communications over the intervening years, SBI had not taken a decision on that application until the matter was brought before the High Court.
The Court observed that there are two types of delays relevant in compassionate appointment cases: delay in applying itself and delay by the authority in deciding the application. It noted that both forms of delay—filing delay and prosecutorial inaction—must be viewed critically, as they can suggest that the claimed financial distress may no longer exist. The Court held that delay or laches, especially in approaching this Court belatedly, cannot always be condoned, particularly when the aggrieved party seemingly had the means and awareness to press the claim.
In the present case, the Court found that the petitioner delayed approaching the Court and had engaged in family litigation for many years instead of seeking judicial intervention earlier. That conduct weighed against condonation of the delay. Nevertheless, the Court distinguished that the primary fault lay with the bank’s failure to act in an expeditious manner. It emphasized that responding to a pending representation is a statutory and moral duty of the institution. The fact that SBI had remained silent for so long, without furnishing even a reasoned decision, was found to be inexcusable.
Given the persistent inaction, the High Court held that it was appropriate to impose exemplary cost to reflect the seriousness of delay and to discourage institutional apathy in compassionate appointment policies. The amount of ₹1,00,000 was fixed as a penalty appropriate to the scenario. The Court’s order aims to enforce accountability and ensure that pending grant or denial of compassionate employment is not indefinitely stalled in administrative limbo.
While the Court imposed the cost, it did not itself order the appointment or decide on merits in that order. The imposition underscores that public sector entities, including banks, must comply with timelines and accountability standards in sensitive matters of compassionate appointment, particularly when litigants remain in prolonged uncertainty waiting for institutional decision.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.