In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court ordered a public sector bank to pay INR 1 lakh compensation to a petitioner, who waited for years for it, instead of giving him a job on compassionate grounds after the untimely death of his father– who was an employee in the bank. While the court observed that the delay caused unnecessary hardship to the family, which had been struggling financially after the death of the petitioner’s father in 2019, it denied the job to the kin. Here’s why and what one can learn about the rules for a bank job on compassionate grounds:The Background: Father fired from job, leading to long legal battleThe problem began when the petitioner’s father was dismissed from his job at the State Bank of India (SBI) on May 10, 2006. He challenged his termination before the Central Labour Court, which ruled in his favour on October 16, 2015, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages and benefits.However, SBI appealed the decision in the Allahabad High Court (Writ C No. 53989 of 2016). While the court temporarily stayed the labour court’s award, it allowed partial relief by directing the bank to reinstate the employee and release 25% of his back wages.Sadly, the employee passed away on December 8, 2019, before the case could conclude.The compassionate appointment requestFollowing his death, the employee’s wife submitted an application for compassionate appointment on January 24, 2020, seeking a job for their son. Another request was made on April 4, 2025, after no response from the bank.The son claimed that despite repeated follow-ups, SBI failed to take any action, forcing him to approach the High Court. On September 25, 2025, the court awarded him INR 1 lakh as compensation but rejected his plea for compassionate employment due to delay and lack of justification.Why the Allahabad High Court denied the request for job on compassionate groundsAccording to Justice Ajay Bhanot’s judgment, compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government or public sector employee. Such jobs are an exception to the regular recruitment process and are not a guaranteed right.The court emphasized that, “The sole purpose of compassionate appointment is to offer prompt financial support to a family facing sudden distress. It cannot be treated as a future job guarantee.”Since the petitioner waited several years before actively pursuing his claim, and did not demonstrate ongoing financial hardship, the court ruled against granting him the appointment.SBI’s delay also criticised by HCWhile denying the job, the High Court criticized SBI for its failure to respond promptly to the petitioner’s applications. The bank’s inaction went against its duties as a model employer.As a result, the court ordered SBI to pay INR 1 lakh to the petitioner within two months for causing “avoidable difficulties” through administrative negligence.Legal principles behind the rulingThe court reiterated key constitutional principles regarding compassionate employment:– Such appointments are exceptions to merit-based public recruitment.– They are not hereditary rights or permanent entitlements.– Delay in application or prosecution weakens the claim, as it implies the family has overcome its financial crisis.– Courts have consistently ruled that filing repeated representations after long gaps does not revive a time-barred claim.– The court referred to several landmark cases, including Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 290) and C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008), to highlight that compassionate appointments must be sought and processed swiftly.The final verdictThe Allahabad High Court dismissed the son’s plea for compassionate appointment due to a five-year delay and failure to justify it. However, it acknowledged SBI’s negligence and imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on the bank for not addressing the request on time.The judgment reinforces that compassionate appointments are meant for immediate financial support—not as an employment right to be claimed years later. Both dependents and employers must act without delay to uphold the spirit of this social welfare measure.