Case: Prinsu Singh vs Union of India & Others
- Case Title: Prinsu Singh vs Union of India & Others
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot
- Case Type: Writ Petition (Service Matter – Compassionate Appointment)
- Petitioner: Prinsu Singh
- Respondents: Union of India, State Bank of India (SBI), and others
- Date of Judgment: 25th September 2025
1. Case Analysis
Prinsu Singh’s father worked in the State Bank of India (SBI).
- In 2006, his father was dismissed from service.
- In 2015, the Labour Court held that the dismissal was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages.
- In 2016, SBI challenged this order before the High Court, which allowed him to be reinstated but only gave 25% of back wages until the case was finally decided.
- While this dispute was still pending, his father died in December 2019 while he was in service.
2. Applications for Compassionate Appointment
- In January 2020, Prinsu’s mother applied for a compassionate appointment (a job for a dependent after the employee’s death).
- After that, there was no real follow-up.
- Finally, in April 2025, Prinsu himself applied again, almost five years later.
3. What is Compassionate Appointment?
Normally, government jobs are given only through open competition (exams/interviews).
But when an employee dies suddenly, the government allows a dependent to get a job on compassionate grounds.
- The purpose is to give immediate financial relief to the family.
- It is not a legal right or hereditary employment.
- The family must apply quickly after the death.
- If the family survives for many years without the job, the court assumes that the crisis no longer exists.
4. The Problem in This Case
- After his father’s death in 2019, Prinsu applied only once in 2020.
- Between 2021–2025, he finished his graduation and got involved in family property disputes instead of pursuing the job request.
- Only in 2025, nearly six years after his father’s death, he approached the Court.
The Court noted:
- Compassionate appointment is meant for immediate relief.
- If someone waits for years, it means the family was able to manage financially.
- Spending years in private disputes cannot be an excuse for ignoring the application.
- Therefore, Prinsu’s case did not show urgency or financial crisis.
5. Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on previous judgments:
- Ashish Yadav v. UPSRTC → Delay shows financial need no longer exists.
- Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar (SC 2025) → Application must be immediate; long delay destroys the claim.
- C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining → Repeated reminders don’t make an old claim alive again.
- Gian Singh Mann case → Belated petitions cannot be entertained.
From these, the Court concluded:
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right.
- Delayed claims cannot be entertained.
- Otherwise, the scheme would become a back-door hereditary employment, which violates Articles 14 and 16 (equality in jobs).
6. Final Decision
- The Court dismissed Prinsu’s petition.
- He is not entitled to a job because of the long delay.
- However, the Court also criticized SBI:
- They failed to decide the application promptly.
- They acted irresponsibly and caused unnecessary hardship.
- Therefore, the Court imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000 on SBI, to be paid to Prinsu within 2 months.
7. Key Takeaways
- Compassionate appointment is only for immediate financial relief.
- Delay of many years shows the family has managed, so the claim is rejected.
- Filing repeated applications or reminders does not help.
- The Court will not grant jobs based on sympathy, Articles 14 & 16, Constitution of India
- In this case → Job denied for Petitioner, but SBI had to pay ₹1 lakh fine for mishandling the process.
