The Allahabad High Court has really taken State Bank of India (SBI) to task for their inaction on a compassionate appointment plea filed by Prinsu Singh, whose father was an SBI employee. The court dismissed Singh’s petition seeking compassionate appointment but imposed a hefty cost of Rs. 1 lakh on SBI for failing to process his representation promptly.
Key Points of the Case- Background:
Prinsu Singh’s father passed away in December 2019 while still in service. His mother applied for compassionate appointment on his behalf in January 2020.
SBI’s Lapse: Despite receiving the application in January 2020, SBI took no action for over five years, prompting the court’s stern response.
Court’s Reasoning: The Allahabad High Court emphasized compassionate appointments are meant for immediate financial relief and aren’t a vested right. The petitioner had graduated in 2021 and wasn’t pursuing further studies; instead, he was involved in family litigation, undermining the claim of pressing financial need.
Legal Precedent: The court cited the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., stressing compassionate appointments must be sought promptly and aren’t hereditary recruitment.
Cost Imposition: Justice Ajay Bhanot directed SBI to pay Rs. 1 lakh costs to Prinsu Singh within two months for their inaction.
This judgment highlights the court’s view on timely action by employers and the specific intent behind compassionate appointment schemes. The Allahabad High Court imposed a Rs. 1 lakh cost on State Bank of India (SBI) for their inaction on Prinsu Singh’s compassionate appointment plea, despite receiving his representation in January 2020. The court dismissed Singh’s petition seeking compassionate appointment due to lack of pressing financial need, noting he had graduated in 2021 and was involved in family litigation rather than pursuing further studies. Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized compassionate appointments aren’t a vested right and are meant for immediate financial relief, citing the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. The judgment underscores the balance between providing support to deceased employees’ families and maintaining merit-based recruitment integrity.
