ORDER By the Court 1. The petitioner has challenged the decision taken and communicated by respondent No. 6 contained in letter No. 170 dated 27th March, 2001 whereby and whereunder the Management of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited ("SAIL" for short) shown its inability to acced to the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. One of the grounds shown to reject the claim of the petitioner is that no provision exists in SAIL/Raw Materials Division for providing employment to the nominee/next of kith and kin of ex-employee on compassionate ground. The other ground taken is that as per the nominee of late Birendra Thakur is covered under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme and enjoying the benefit of compassionate ground as per the existing provision, he is not entitle for benefit on compassionate appointment, 3. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner late Birendra Thakur was in service of SAIL and died in harness on 6th June, 1998. The petitioner, dependant son applied for compassionate appointment on 6th August, 1998 but no action having been taken he had to move this Court in CWJC No. 4387 of 2000, wherein this Court vide order dated 3rd January, 2001 directed the respondents to decide the application as has been preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned rejection letter was issued. 4. It is not in dispute that there is scheme for compassionate appointment as reiterated vide subsequent circular dated 2nd May, 2001. It is only mentioned therein that the scheme will not be made applicable to those who are covered under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme and will be applicable in the case where the death is due to kidney failure, heart attack and cancer. 5. The issue elating to compassionate appointment of a dependant of deceased employee of SAIL fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kuwar and another v. The Steel Authority of India Ltd., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 . 6. In the said case the claim of dependant for compassionate appointment was refused on same ground that the dependant has been allowed benefit under the Family Benefit Scheme. 6. In the said case the claim of dependant for compassionate appointment was refused on same ground that the dependant has been allowed benefit under the Family Benefit Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way equated with the compassionate appointment and directed to consider the case of the said dependant employee for appointment on compassionate ground, though he was allowed Family Benefit Scheme. 7. The aforesaid judgment is binding on the SAIL and the respondents are bound to give same benefit of the judgment to all dependants of the deceased employees as per the decision of the Supreme Court. 8. The provision for compassionate appointment is not an appointment in the eye of law as per Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. To save the family of an employee on sudden jerk in the family by reason of death of bread earner, the provision of compassionate appointment has been made. Such appointment is not given to any individual for his/her livelihood but given to a dependant of the family of the deceased for the purpose of maintaining the family. 9. The death is a reality and cannot be distinguished on the ground that a person died in cancer or on failure of kidney or heart attack or because of any other disease. If the employees dies in harness, whatever the reason for death may be, the family will be disturbed because of sudden demise of the bread earner. 10. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents cannot deprive dependant of a deceased employee who died in harness on the ground that the said dependant has been provided benefit under the Family Benefit Scheme nor can be discriminated in the matte of compassionate appointment on the basis of reason of death. 11. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned rejection letter dated 27th March, 2001 being bad is set aside. The case is remitted to the respondents with direction to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground against an appropriate post and vacancy. If there is no vacancy existing for the present, they shall consider the case of the petitioner for such appointment, if any vacancy exist in near future say within a year, along with those, if any, similarly situated. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. Petition allowed.