Judgment 1. Husband of petitioner no. 1 was an employee of respondent-Bank. He was posted as Branch Manager in the office of respondents. He died in harness on 1.12.98. Petitioner no. 1 filed an application for appointment of petitioner no. 2 who is her son-in-law on compassionate ground on 8.3.99. The said petition has been rejected vide order, Annexure-10 stating therein that her youngest son Shail be provided job when he would be major since her eldest son is mentally retarded. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of argument drew my attention to Annex-1 wherein dependants have Peen defined. The same is quoted for ready reference : "Dependant means a widow, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister of the deceased employee or any other close relative nominated by the widow wnen the deceased employee has ieft behind no children of his own eligible for appointment and on whom she will be wholly dependent." 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the deceased had two sons, one was mentally retarted and another was minor aged about 12 years at the time of filing of application. He had also five daughters out of whom two have been married. One of the sons-in-law was nominated by petitioner no. 1 for appointment as he was looking after petitioner no. 1 and had undertaken to look after her and her entire family. It was also disclosed by learned counsel for the petitioners that other family members are either not eligible for appointment or not interested in job. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, however, stated that under the scheme in case deceased employee died leaving behind no children of his own eligible for appointment the other near relation can be appointed on whom the widow will be wholly dependant. 4. It is obvious from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that children of the deceased are either not eligible or interested in appointment. In such circumstances, the petition was filed by petitioner no. 1 nominating petitioner no. 2 lor appointment on compassionate ground. The said petition has been rejected en the ground that her minor son shall be provided job when he would be major. This does not appear to be a cogent reason for rejecting the claim of petitioner no. 2 because of the fact that in case of death in harness family requires immediate financial relief. The said petition has been rejected en the ground that her minor son shall be provided job when he would be major. This does not appear to be a cogent reason for rejecting the claim of petitioner no. 2 because of the fact that in case of death in harness family requires immediate financial relief. In other words, it can be said that respondents are denying immediate relief which is object behind appointment on compassionate ground. 5. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed. The order, Annexure-10, is quashed. Respondent-Bank is directed to consider for providing job to the petitioner no. 2 who has already been nominated by petitioner no. 1, widow of the deceased. The entire exercise of consideration must be made in the light of observation made inthis order and be completed within two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. To avoid delay petitioner no. 1 will file an affidavit before the authority concerned with respect to non-eligibility of children/not interest in the job.