In Brief
The respondent applied for compassionate appointment after his father died while employed at the State Bank of India. Before the application could be considered, the bank abolished its compassionate appointment scheme and replaced it with an ex-gratia payment scheme. The Supreme Court found conflicting precedents: one line of decisions held that the new scheme applies to pending applications (no vested right under the old scheme), while another held that the scheme in force when the claim arose should govern. Finding these principles irreconcilable, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.