The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Prinsu Singh seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the State Bank of India (SBI). While rejecting the plea on account of delay and laches, the court also pulled up the bank for its inaction and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh, to be paid to the petitioner within two months.
Background
The case traces back to the petitioner’s father, who was dismissed from service in 2006. His dismissal was overturned by the Labour Court in 2015, with directions for reinstatement and full benefits. However, that award was stayed by the High Court in 2016, with partial relief. The father died in harness in December 2019.
Following his death, the petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment in January 2020, within the six-month window provided under SBI’s scheme. A second application was made much later, in April 2025, which raised serious questions of delay.
Court’s Observations
Justice Ajay Bhanot carefully examined the purpose of compassionate appointments, describing them as a narrow exception to the normal recruitment process. “The sole purpose is to provide prompt financial succour to the family of the deceased government employee,” the bench observed, adding that such appointments cannot be treated as a hereditary right.
The court noted that although the first application was filed in time, the petitioner did not pursue his case with urgency. Instead, he spent years completing his graduation and engaging in family litigation. “The conduct of the petitioner gives rise to the inference that immediate financial crises which the family may have sustained in 2019 had long ceased to exist,” the order stated.
Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, including Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., the bench reiterated that belated claims undermine the very object of compassionate appointments. The law presumes that if a family has managed for years without the benefit, the pressing need no longer survives.
At the same time, the court did not spare the respondent bank, criticizing its apathy in failing to decide the petitioner’s representations in a timely manner.
Decision
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it barred by delay and laches. However, it directed the bank to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to the petitioner within two months. The bench made it clear that misplaced sympathy or overliberal interpretation of compassionate appointment rules would “denude the very legality” of such appointments.
Case Title: Prinsu Singh v. Union of India & Others
Case No.: Writ - A No. 5353 of 2025
Date of Order: 25 September 2025