The Delhi High Court ruled on 8 September 2026 that Punjab & Sind Bank could not reject a deceased employee’s widow for compassionate appointment by assuming that her entire terminal-benefit corpus would earn a fixed monthly interest income. The Court set aside the rejection and directed an appointment under the applicable bank scheme, but later implementation has not been independently confirmed.
What the Delhi High Court ordered
On 8 September 2026, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal in Anita v. Punjab and Sind Bank, LPA 208/2025. The appellant had sought compassionate appointment following the death of her husband, a bank employee in the subordinate cadre, in September 2022. The bank had rejected the application after treating an assumed return on terminal benefits as monthly family income. The Court set aside the bank’s rejection dated 10 September 2024 and the Single Judge’s ruling dated 13 February 2025. It directed the bank to grant the appointment within two months of the judgment.
Why the bank had rejected the request
The application was governed by the bank’s PSB Jeevan Sahara compassionate-appointment scheme, circulated on 18 November 2022. For the relevant subordinate-cadre case, one eligibility route under Clause 5.1(c) required family income, including properly assessed notional income, to be below 60% of the deceased employee’s last-drawn salary after tax. In the bank’s calculation, that 60% figure was ₹32,371.86 per month.
The bank assessed total monthly family income at ₹33,422.37. This included ₹8,337.26 as assumed monthly interest on a net terminal-benefit corpus of ₹15,04,468.05, using an assumed annual return of 6.65%, besides other amounts. The assumption took the assessed income above the applicable 60% threshold.
The Court’s distinction: real or supportable income versus invented income
The High Court found no evidence that the full terminal-benefit corpus had been invested to generate the assumed interest. A family was not required under the cited scheme to retain the entire sum indefinitely in an income-producing form. The Court explained that the expression notional income can cover income actually received or capable of being earned from assets genuinely held, but does not justify attributing hypothetical returns to a corpus that the family was not obliged to keep invested.
The judgment reports the revised monthly income as ₹25,780.11, below ₹32,371.86. However, its printed figures contain an arithmetic inconsistency: ₹33,422.37 minus ₹8,337.26 equals ₹25,085.11, not ₹25,780.11. Either amount is below the stated eligibility threshold; this discrepancy should not be concealed. The Court also said that family pension and welfare-society pension arising on an employee’s death cannot, merely because they are received, automatically replace or bar compassionate employment. The judgment must be read together with the precise scheme and evidence in this case.
What was directed, and what is not known
The High Court quashed the rejection and directed Punjab & Sind Bank to grant the appellant compassionate appointment within two months from 8 September 2026. No independent evidence was obtained establishing whether that appointment was actually made by the directed date. Accordingly, this article describes the judicial direction, not a confirmed completed appointment or a later enforcement action.
Practical relevance for banker families and HR departments
The ruling illustrates why compassionate-appointment assessments should explain every income assumption and preserve documentary support, rather than merely applying a theoretical return to a lump-sum benefit. It does not mean all beneficiaries of deceased bank employees automatically qualify, nor does it cancel the eligibility rules of other banks. Families should examine the scheme applicable on their case date, the relevant cadre, financial evidence, decision letter and appeal remedies.
Date clarification: This is a recovered judgment dated 8 September 2026, not a new court order of 9 November.
Sources and References
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion