Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The dispute in this case relates to appointment on compassionate ground. By order contained in annexure 6 dated 4.5.2000 the application of the petitioner to appoint her son Deepak Kumar Singh on compassionate ground on the death of her husband i.e. the father of Deepak Kumar Singh, while in the employment of the respondent Syndicate Bank has been rejected. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and a direction to appoint her said son. She had earlier approached this Court in the matter in CWJC No. 10116 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction to file representation. The impugned order dated 4.5.2000 has been passed in the light of the said order. 2. The writ petition earlier came up before a learned single Judge of this Court who by order dated 12.4.2001 referred the case to Division Bench. From the order it appears that reliance was placed in support of the petitioners claim on a decision in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Singh V/s. State Bank of India, 2001(2) PLJR 219 . In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana (1994)4 SCC 138 , pressed into service on behalf of the respondent-Bank, the learned Judge thought it desirable to refer the case to Division Bench. That is how the case has come up before this Bench. 3. Before adverting to the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the factual background of the dispute. Late Ram Naresh Singh, the husband of the petitioner and father of said Deepak Kumar Singn was a clerk-cum-cashier in the Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) since 9.6.65. While in employment he developed some ailments and ultimately died on 3.9.96. He left behind three minor children, besides the petitioner and Deepak Kumar Singh. On 26.11.96 the petitioner made application to the Managing Director of the Bank through the Branch Manager for appointment of Deepak Kumar Singh. She sent reminders but no action was taken. In the circumstances, she came to this Court in CWJC No. 10116 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction to her to make a proper representation, and corresponding direction to the respondents to pass final order. The petitioner filed representation on 15.3.2000. She sent reminders but no action was taken. In the circumstances, she came to this Court in CWJC No. 10116 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction to her to make a proper representation, and corresponding direction to the respondents to pass final order. The petitioner filed representation on 15.3.2000. In the application she stated that she has no other source of income except the pension and no other member of the family was employed. By the impugned order dated 4.5.2000 the application was rejected on the ground that the total family income of the petitioner is Rs. 6,162/- comprising family pension of Rs. 4.304/- and notional interest of Rs. 1,858/- per month on the net liquid assets, which was sufficient and therefore it is not a fit case for compassionate appointment. 4. Shri Karuna Nidhan Keshav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on a wholly arbitrary ground as in all cases of death of an employee in harness, family pension and other terminal benefits are payable to the widow and the family, and if on that ground the authorities start rejecting the claim there would hardly be a case in which compassionate appointment will be made, that would frustrate the object of compassionate appointment and render the scheme infructuous. Counsel placed reliance on, besides the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha V/s. State Bank of India (supra), Balbir Kaur V/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1596 . 5. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that in accordance with the decision Of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana, (1994)4 SCC 138 circulated by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide office memorandum no. 14014/22/94-Estt. (D) dated 28.11.94 the Bank has framed a scheme of compassionate appointment and the case of the petitioner does not come within its frame work. Being the noddle department the instructions of the Ministry of Finance are binding on the Bank. Indeed, instruction was issued pursuant to the decision aforesaid of the Apex Court. As per the said guidelines compassionate appointment is to be made only where the financial condition of the family is such that but for the employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis caused by the death of the employee. 6. Indeed, instruction was issued pursuant to the decision aforesaid of the Apex Court. As per the said guidelines compassionate appointment is to be made only where the financial condition of the family is such that but for the employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis caused by the death of the employee. 6. The first point for consideration is whether the scheme/guidelines referred to above, is in accordance with law. I have no difficulty in answering the question in favour of the respondent-Bank. As a matter of fact, the guidelines circulated by office memorandum no. 14014. dated 28.11.94 (supra) contains excerpts from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpals case and the scheme framed by the Bank, contained in Annexure-A, virtually reproduces the very words of the Supreme Court. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant passage of the judgment as under:- ".......As a rule appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit.... However, to this general rule, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and one such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment his famiiy will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The post in class III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The post in class III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest post by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required io be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception of the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly unturned..... Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible...... The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceaseds family. Neither the qualifications of his dependant nor the post which he held is relevant.....If the dependant of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity. (emphasis added) 7 It would be appropriate to quote the relevant part of the scheme framed by the Bank side by side, as under: 1. Subject to satisfying the age criteria and educational qualification, the offer of compassionate appointment will be made where the Bank is satistied that the financial condition of the family is such that but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis. In the case of widows, the age should be within 35 years to be eligible for compassionate appointments. In the case of widows, the age should be within 35 years to be eligible for compassionate appointments. However, the competent Authority is authorised to relax the age criteria on merits. 2. To determine the financial condition of the family of the deceased the following aspects will be taken into consideration: (a) Amount of family pension. (b) Terminal benefits to be received from the Bank including amount received as Death Relief. (c) LIC proceeds and other investment of the deceased employee. (d) The income of the family from other sources. (e) Employment of other family members. (f) Size of the family and liabilities if any etc. with sufficient proof. 3. The compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period. The Consideration for such employment is not a vested rights which can be exercised at any time in future. 4. In case the dependent is a minor or does not possess suitable minimum qualification required for the post his/her case can be considered at the discretion of the Bank within 4 years of the death of the employees to enable him/her to so qualify in terms of age and/or qualification provided that the guardian/dependent has made a request for appointment to the Banks within 3 months of the death of the employee. 5. No person or dependent of the deceased employee can claim as a matter of right employment in the Bank under this scheme and appointment will be considered purely at the sole discretion of the Bank. The Bank reserves the right to modify, suspend or withdraw the scheme at any time at its sole discretion and the Banks decision in this regard will be final and cannot be called in question. (emphasis added) 8 From bare reading of the scheme it is manifest that it has been framed in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. The observations noticed above leave no manner of doubt that the essence of compassionate appointment is the financial adversity of the family on account of sudden death of the bread earner. 9. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity and equal protection of taws to all citizens though it does not prohibit classification on the basis of reasonable differentia. That is classification is permissible where there is basis of classification and nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby. 9. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity and equal protection of taws to all citizens though it does not prohibit classification on the basis of reasonable differentia. That is classification is permissible where there is basis of classification and nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby. Article 16 is one of the facets of the concept of equality. It ensures equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment under the State. Clause (2) prohibits employment on ground only of descent, among other things. Thus appointment on ground only of descent would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. The scheme of appointments of dependents of employees dying in harness has nonetheless been upheld as being a reasonable classification since it helps the family relieve economic distress because of sudden demise of the bread-winner. As the Supreme Court observed in Auditor General of India V/s. G. Ananta Rajeshwar Rao, (1994)1 SCC 192 , "it is not on the ground of descent simplicitor, but exceptional circumstance" that the scheme regarding compassionate appointment can be upheld. Experience showed that in many cases on the death of serving employee the family fell in dire straits on account of sudden disruption of income. The scheme of compassionate appointment was evolved to extend helping hand to the bereaved family so that it may tide over the financial crisis on its own. In Auditor General of India V/s. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao (supra) the Court observed that a person who dies in harness and whose members of the family need immediate relief of providing appointment to relieve economic distress from the loss of the bread-winner of the family need compassionate treatment. But all possible eventualities should be enumerated so that it does not become a rule to avoid regular recruitment and a "breeding ground for misuse of appointments on compassionate ground", Articles 16(3) to 16(5) provide for exceptions. Further exception must be on constitutionally valid and permissible grounds. 10. In Jagdish Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 the Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in the cases of Auditor General of India V/s. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao (supra) and Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana (supra). Further exception must be on constitutionally valid and permissible grounds. 10. In Jagdish Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 the Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in the cases of Auditor General of India V/s. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao (supra) and Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana (supra). It was observed that "the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee(s) who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family on sudden demise of the earning member of the family." In S. Mohan V/s. Government of Tamil Nadu (1998) 9 SCC 485 , similar observations were made and the Court followed the decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpals case. 11. It would thus appear that the essence of the compassionate appointment is the financial condition of the family resulting from the death of the bread- earner, and not the descent. An impression however has gained ground over the years that in all cases of the employee dying in harness one of his dependents must be appointed on compassionate ground as if the death of the employee provides a ground or reason for appointment. In the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, from paragraph 16 of the judgment it appears that as against the earning of Rs. 13,942.31 per month at the time of death the income of the family fell down to Rs. 7900 (approximately). The stand of the Bank was that the financial condition of the family was not such that but for the employment of the petitioner it would not be able to meet the crisis. The contention was rejected by the learned single Judge observing that keeping in view the steep rise in price and increasing cost of living the Bank was not justified in taking the stand. I am not able to persuade myself to take a similar view. The ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court clearly is that the compassionate appointment is provided as a helping hand so that the family is able to meet the financial crisis. As stated in no uncertain terms in Umesh Kumar Nagpals case the only ground which can justify compassionate ground is "penurious condition" of the bereaved family. Shrinking of income from Rs. 13,900 to Rs. 7,900 (approx.) cannot be said to render the financial condition of the family penurious. As stated in no uncertain terms in Umesh Kumar Nagpals case the only ground which can justify compassionate ground is "penurious condition" of the bereaved family. Shrinking of income from Rs. 13,900 to Rs. 7,900 (approx.) cannot be said to render the financial condition of the family penurious. After all, at one stage, on superannuation, the income of every family stands reduced; the only difference is that in case of death while in employment, such reduction comes at an unexpected time. But it has to be kept in mind that providing job to a dependent of the deceased employee cannot be regarded as the goal because there are umpteen families equally suffering from financial hardship. The only justification of compassionate appointment is that it is made in consideration of the services rendered by the employee and legitimate expectations which on account of sudden death in employment get upturned. 12. in the case of Balbir Kaur V/s. Steel Authority of India, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1596, there are some observations which seem to lend support to the petitioners case; however, the issues which arose for consideration in that case were quite different and the observations have to be understood in context. The issue was whether in view of the Family Benefit Scheme, 1992 framed in terms of the NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989 which assured a regular income till the date of normal superannuation on depositing the amount of provident fund and gratuity, compassionate appointment can be denied to the family of the deceased. The Court held that the Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment which was in vogue from before, and that the provision regarding deposit of the amounts of Provident Fund or gratuity was violative of the relevant provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 the Scheme framed thereunder, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. it was in that context that the court observed that having regard to the constitutional philosophy, denial of compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair nor reasonable. The said decision in my respectful opinion cannot be read as laying down the proposition that irrespective of the financial condition of the family one of the dependents of the deceased employee should be appointed. 13. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is in receipt of family pension of Rs. The said decision in my respectful opinion cannot be read as laying down the proposition that irrespective of the financial condition of the family one of the dependents of the deceased employee should be appointed. 13. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is in receipt of family pension of Rs. 4304; besides, she is also in possession of the liquid assets worth Rs. 2,95,450. It was submitted that the petitioners husband had taken advance of Rs. 1,35,081/- during his life time from the Bank and therefore calculation of the value of the liquid assets was not correct, It is not necessary to go into the dispute as, in my opinion, that is not a relevant consideration. If the employee had taken advance, he apparently did so with full understanding of its implications in future and it cannot be taken into account in computing the income of the family and ascertaining the financial condition of the family. The income by way of family pension alone is said to be more than the limit of Rs. 3500 fixed by the Bank. 14. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned decision rejecting the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment. 15. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R.K.Sinha, J. 16 I agree.