The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a bank’s decision denying compassionate appointment to a young man whose father died in service. The court found the rejection to be arbitrary and unsupported by policy, directing a fresh consideration of his case.
Background of the Case
The case, Nikhil Kol vs Union Bank of India & Others (W.P. No. 794 of 2019), came up before Justice Jai Kumar Pillai at the Jabalpur bench.
Nikhil Kol approached the court after the bank rejected his request for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a ‘Daftary’ who had served the bank for over 22 years. His father passed away suddenly on August 7, 2016, leaving behind a financially distressed family.
The petitioner, then a 20-year-old, claimed he was the sole earning hope for a family of six, including his minor siblings. His application for a sub-staff post was initially recommended at the local level but later rejected in January 2018.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection was based on an “unsatisfactory service record” of the deceased employee - a ground not mentioned in the bank’s compassionate appointment scheme.
Read aslo:- Allahabad High Court Halts UP Seed Corporation Tender Over “Arbitrary” Bid Rejection
It was submitted that the family had fallen into severe financial hardship and that the very purpose of such appointments is to provide immediate relief. The petitioner also highlighted a delay of over two years in deciding his application
Hearing the matter, the court noted that the bank failed to appear or file any response despite being served notice back in 2019.
Justice Pillai observed that compassionate appointment is meant to address immediate financial distress and must be handled promptly. Quoting settled law, the court said,
“The purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner and must be granted without delay.”
The court closely examined the rejection order and found it lacking any reference to a valid policy provision.
“The rejection does not cite any clause permitting denial on the basis of ‘unsatisfactory service record’,” the bench noted.
It further remarked, “Importing such an alien ground is legally unsustainable and defeats the purpose of the scheme.”
The judge also expressed concern over the conduct of the bank, stating that the claim was rejected on “wholly extraneous grounds” despite clear evidence of financial distress.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the bank’s rejection order dated January 30, 2018.
The court directed the bank to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh, strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and without relying on irrelevant factors. The process must be completed within 60 days.
Additionally, the court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the bank for the hardship caused to the petitioner due to delay and arbitrary decision-making.
“The conduct of the respondents reflects glaring arbitrariness,” the court observed, emphasizing that authorities must pass reasoned and policy-based orders.
case details
Case Title: Nikhil Kol vs Union Bank of India & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 794 of 2019
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
Decision Date: 24 April 2026
