15 April 2025 Legal Updates

ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC | JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION CAN BE PASSED EVEN DEHORS PLEADINGS: SUPREME COURT

a. Case Name:

• Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India (Extraordinary Civil Jurisdiction)

c. Date of Decision:

• April 7, 2025

d. Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Key Facts

The petitioner Rajiv Ghosh was the son of Late Ranjan Ghosh, who was a tenant in premises owned by the respondent Satya Naryan Jaiswal. Ranjan Ghosh passed away on July 13, 2016, after which his son (the petitioner) continued to occupy the premises. The respondent served a notice to the petitioner on July 20, 2018, informing him that as per the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, he could enjoy tenancy rights only for 5 years from his father's death. After the 5-year period elapsed, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

Legal Issue

Whether the trial court was justified in passing a decree based on admissions made by the defendant in his written statement under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code?

Court's Analysis

1.    The Supreme Court examined Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which defines "tenant" to include the dependent heir of the original tenant for a period not exceeding 5 years from the date of death of the tenant.
2.    The Court analyzed the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which empowers courts to pass judgment based on admissions made in pleadings or otherwise.
3.    The Court noted that in his written statement, the petitioner had:

• Admitted that Ranjan Ghosh was the sole tenant who passed away on July 13, 2016
• Acknowledged that the respondent was the owner of the property
• Admitted that rent was paid until May 2021

4.    The Court observed that the powers under Order XII Rule 6 are discretionary but enable courts to expedite judgments based on clear admissions.

Judgment

• The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of both the trial court and the High Court.
• The Court rejected the petitioner's new argument that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was not applicable, noting that the petitioner himself had filed applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the same Act.
• The Court found that based on the petitioner's admissions and the statutory limitation of 5 years, he had no legal right to continue occupation after the statutory period expired.
• The Court also directed that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and subsequently to their respective District judiciary.

Legal Principles Established

• The provision under Order XII Rule 6 CPC enables courts to pass judgment based on clear admissions without waiting for the determination of other questions.
• Admissions that can form the basis of judgment may be express or implied, in writing or oral, and may be made before or during the proceedings.
• The power to pass judgment on admissions is discretionary, not mandatory, and courts may refuse to exercise this power if they believe the case involves questions that cannot be appropriately decided based solely on admissions.

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS NOT INTENDED AS WINDFALL FOR KIN OF DECEASED, ONLY MEANT TO KEEP "KITCHEN FIRE BURNING": ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

a. Case Title:

• Chanchal Sonkar v. Chairman, State Bank of India and 5 Others

b. Court:

• Allahabad High Court

c. Decision Date:

• April 2, 2025

d. Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Ajay Bhanot

Summary

This case addresses the rejection of compassionate appointment for the petitioner, Chanchal Sonkar, whose husband was an employee at State Bank of India until his death on November 17, 2022. The bank rejected her application citing that the family's monthly income exceeded the threshold requirement for compassionate appointment eligibility.
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the bank's decision based on the following key considerations:

1. Legal Framework for Compassionate Appointments

The judgment establishes that compassionate appointments are an exception to the constitutional requirement of open, competitive recruitment for public posts. These appointments are justified solely on humanitarian grounds to provide immediate financial relief to families facing sudden crisis after losing their breadwinner.

2. Financial Eligibility Criteria

The bank's "Scheme for Compassionate Appointments of Payment of Ex-gratia Financial Relief to dependants of deceased employees on Compassionate Grounds, 2022" states that:

•  Appointments are only considered if the family is "indigent and deserves immediate assistance"
• The family's monthly income must be less than 50% of the deceased's last gross salary (if survived by spouse and/or one child) or less than 60% (in other cases)

3. Petitioner's Financial Status

The court noted that after calculating the family's income from terminal benefits, investments, notional interest, and family pension, the total monthly income came to ₹99,555.71, which exceeded 75% of the deceased employee's last drawn gross salary of ₹1,18,800.14. This clearly surpassed the 60% threshold, demonstrating the family was not facing financial destitution.

Legal Principles Established

The judgment reinforces several important principles:

• Compassionate appointments must strictly adhere to applicable rules and eligibility criteria
• These appointments are not a vested right but a welfare measure
• Over liberal interpretation would risk unconstitutionality under Articles 14, 15, and 16
• Financial condition assessment is mandatory before granting such appointments
• The purpose is not to create a "windfall" but to help families maintain basic sustenance

The court cited several precedents including Supreme Court judgments in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) and Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) to emphasize that compassionate appointments must be limited to their intended purpose of addressing immediate financial crises.