JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Go el, J.—Admitted facts of this case are that petitioner is son of late Tej Singh. He was ex-serviceman. After having served Army for 15 years, he retired. Thereafter he was appointed as a Guard with respondent No. 1 Bank. He died in harness on 27.2.1999. Deceased is survived by his widow, two sons and a daughter. 2. Respondent-Bank through respondent No. 2 on 6th March, 1999 while condoling the death of her husband, informed the mother of the petitioner that in the Bank, to the legal representatives/dependant of the deceased official on fulfilment of certain conditions, some benefits are given, viz., disbursal of the amount in the provident fund, family pension, compassionate grant. In the event of the deceased employee being member of the State Bank of India Mutual Benefit Scheme, then besides grant, monthly financial assistance is also given from the benefit fund, leave encashment benefit, compassionate appointment to one of the family members is also provided by the bank. Petitioners mother was further informed vide this communication that in the aforesaid context she may contact Bhuntar Branch of the bank and forms may be presented after those are duly filled in at the earliest. In filling of the forms if any assistance is required then also she may contact Bhuntar Branch. Petitioners mother was further assured that in all these matters as per rules of the bank, immediate action be taken. Copy of this communication is placed on the file as Annexure P-l. 3. Further facts which emerge from the record of this petition are, that family pension was released in favour of the widow of the deceased vide Annexure P-2. Date of birth of the petitioner is 8.4.1982. He was to attain age of 18 years on 7.4.2000. Since his matriculation result was not declared, as such an application was addressed to the Deputy General Manager on 15th May, 2000 by the mother of the petitioner which when translated into English reads as under:— "Sir, With due respect, it is submitted that my husband Shri (N.K.) T.S. (Tej Singh). No. 2661862 was posted as Gun Man in S.B.I. Bhuntar, District Kullu Branch. On 27.2.1999 he suddenly died in the Bank on duty. My son Latish Kumar has attained the age of 18 years in April 2000. He has also appeared in 10th Class Examination and the result is awaited. No. 2661862 was posted as Gun Man in S.B.I. Bhuntar, District Kullu Branch. On 27.2.1999 he suddenly died in the Bank on duty. My son Latish Kumar has attained the age of 18 years in April 2000. He has also appeared in 10th Class Examination and the result is awaited. I humbly request you to kindly appoint my son in place of my late husband for which I would be thankful to you. Thanks, Yours faithfully Sd/- (in Hindi) Dated 15.5.2000 (Prema Devi)". 4. This was followed by another communication dated 20.5.2002, Annexure P-5. Respondent No. 2 informed the mother of the petitioner that at her instance declaration of result of matriculation was also awaited. Forms were sent through Sandeep which may be filled-in. In case there is any difficulty, she should come to the branch so that those can be filled-in and then forwarded to the Zonal Office. This was followed by reminder Annexure P-7. 5. Finally, vide impugned communication dated 6.8.2000 mother of the petitioner was informed that application for appointment of the petitioner was received after one year of the date of death of Tej Singh and for clearing educational qualification, Bank could give four years time to him, as such it was not considered. Her application was received on 28.5.2000 which is after one year of the date of death of Tej Singh (i.e. 28.2.1999), as such it cannot be considered. Petitioners mother appears to have filed an appeal for its employment in the bank against Annexure P-8, followed by Annexure P-10 with a prayer to re-consider the matter. Again vide Annexure P-ll, dated 24.12.2000, stand of the Bank in Annexure P-8 was reiterated. In these circumstances present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents for appointing petitioner on compassionate grounds and declare that portion of the scheme which is inconsistent with the ultimate object resulting in frustrating the object of the scheme be struck down. 6. Respondents when put to notice have filed their reply. Their case is that so far respondent-Bank is concerned, it has formulated a Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds for Dependents of Deceased Employees/Retired on Medical Ground. Application of the petitioner ought to have been filed within one year of the date of death of his father, i.e. by or before 27.2.2000. Their case is that so far respondent-Bank is concerned, it has formulated a Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds for Dependents of Deceased Employees/Retired on Medical Ground. Application of the petitioner ought to have been filed within one year of the date of death of his father, i.e. by or before 27.2.2000. Even if petitioner did not fulfil the minimum required educational qualification or was under age then under this scheme, Bank could have allowed him time as per rules to overcome these hurdles. This ground is pleaded on the basis of the aforesaid scheme for rejection of writ. Besides this, it was also pleaded that keeping in view the retiral benefits allowed to the mother of the petitioner on account of death of her husband, as also pensionary benefit that she is getting both being widow of the deceased from the Army as well as from the bank, she is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for in the writ petition. From Clause 6 of the aforesaid Scheme relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow :— "6. * (b) Requests for appointment under the scheme should be received by the Bank at the earliest, and in any case, not later than one year from the date of death of the employee. In respect of employees who retire on medical grounds, such requests should be received latest within sixty days from the date of retirement from service. * * * * Provided that the Executive Committee of the Central Board may consider relaxations in the following cases subject to the condition that such requests are received by the Bank within a year from the date of death of the employee: (i) In case the dependent to be offered appointment is a minor, the offer of appointment may be kept open beyond a period of four years upto a maximum period of six years from the date of death of the employee. (ii) In case, the spouse or dependent desires to wait till he/she attains certain educational qualifications, his/her case may be considered provided the date so stipulated is within four years from the date of death of the employee. * * * * 7. (ii) In case, the spouse or dependent desires to wait till he/she attains certain educational qualifications, his/her case may be considered provided the date so stipulated is within four years from the date of death of the employee. * * * * 7. From the circumstances narrated hereinabove as well as facts detailed in the pleading of the parties, one fact is clear that the respondent-Bank as a model employer acted in manner expected of it, when immediately after the death of her husband, communication Annexure P-l was addressed intimating the mother of the petitioner what benefits the family is entitled to. At the risk of repetition we may observe that one of such benefits was appointment on compassionate ground. It is also stated in this communication that if any assistance is required from the Bank, she may approach the Bhuntar Branch. Annexures attached with the writ petition further indicate that petitioners case was attended to by respondent No. 2. However, because application having been not submitted within one year of the date of death of his deceased father, case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was not considered. (Emphasis supplied) 8. It is now well settled that public sector undertakings like respondent-Bank as limbs of the welfare state have formulated different schemes for providing appointment on compassionate ground to persons, like petitioner when sole bread winner of the family dies in harness. 9. Object sought to be achieved by making such provisions is laudable and salutary. It is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased, so that its barest minimum necessity of bread and butter is ensured, lest the family is forced to be in the street with a begging bowl. We are also alive to the situation that ordinarily every aspirant who wants to get into the service has to be appointed as per the rules regulating the same. As already noted with a view to achieve the object aforesaid compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. 10. We may also observe in this behalf that compassionate appointment cannot be asked as a matter of right and is also not an alternate source of recruitment by ignoring and/or by, by-passing the recruitment rules. As already noted with a view to achieve the object aforesaid compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. 10. We may also observe in this behalf that compassionate appointment cannot be asked as a matter of right and is also not an alternate source of recruitment by ignoring and/or by, by-passing the recruitment rules. Subject to the provisions of the rules governing such appointments, as iji the present case, it cannot be claimed after a long gap between the death of the employee and filing of the application for such appointment. It is a judicially acknowledged fact, that where long delay has accrued between date of death, as well as claimant attaining majority, the situation has been viewed by Apex Court holding that family having survived for such a long time after death of deceased and attaining majority by the applicant, as such claim made is against the very purpose of making compassionate appointment. Thus claims made in such cases have been declined. 11. Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that aforesaid rules framed by respondent-Bank operate harshly against the petitioner. Alternatively he submitted that his case was simply not considered because of application having been made three months after the expiry of one year from the date of death of his father. According to him, position would not have been altered in case petitioner would have applied within one year of the date of his fathers death. While acknowledging the action of the respondent Bank in issuing Annexure P-l on 6th March, 1999, i.e. within a week of the death of petitioners father, he submitted that in case mother of the petitioner had beeyi put to notice that claim for appointment on compassionate ground if made beyond one year of the date of death will not be considered; And also that in case of petitioner being minor as well as not fulfilling the educational qualification prescribed, there are provisions in the rules when period can be extended there was no reason why she would not submit the application in time. We cannot lose sight regarding social set-up as well as the situation in which family of deceased is placed after the death of sole bread winner. We cannot lose sight regarding social set-up as well as the situation in which family of deceased is placed after the death of sole bread winner. We are satisfied in the circumstances of this case that mother of the petitioner bonafide believed that unless the petitioner attains the age of 18 years, he cannot be employed. He became of 18 years on 7.4.2000, thereafter she started submitting applications. Otherwise there was no good ground for her to have applied within one year of her husbands death, in case she was aware that after this time right will be lost for good. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances Mr. Kapil Dev Sood, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that matter is no more res Integra in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Vikrant Thakur v. State Bank of India and another, 2001 (3) SLC 28. Thus he urged that writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further stated that case of the petitioner was not considered keeping in view her financial position, as such no fault can be found with the impugned action of the respondents. Thus he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. So far decision in the case of Vikrant Thakur, supra is concerned, we feel that its ratio will not apply to the facts of the present case. In this case mother of the petitioner had died on 20th September, 1988. Whereas he attained majority on 19th July, 1995. Application was submitted after about 7 years of the date of death of his mother by the petitioner for being appointed. In these circumstances after following the decisions of Supreme Court, referred to in the said judgment, claim of the petitioner was dismissed. In the present case, as already noted, delay, if any, is only of three months which in our considered view cannot be said to be either abnormal or exceptional. While dismissing the writ petition of Vikrant Thakur, Division Bench observed as under:— "12. We are unable to uphold the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, as already noted, delay, if any, is only of three months which in our considered view cannot be said to be either abnormal or exceptional. While dismissing the writ petition of Vikrant Thakur, Division Bench observed as under:— "12. We are unable to uphold the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. So far as legal position is concerned, from the above cases, it is amply clear that even in the cases where a person is minor unable to apply, the Supreme Court has held considering the underlying object of giving appointment on compassionate ground, that the family does not suffer due to the death of bread-earner and the family survives. If the family has survived in spite of death of such member, there is no dire need to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment. Such a provision, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court cannot be held arbitrary or unreasonable. As in the instant case, the application was made after more than six years, it cannot be said that by rejecting the application, illegality has been committed." Thus, on facts this decision is distinguishable and is not at all applicable. 14. So far plea of the respondents that financial condition of the petitioners family is not such which entitles him to seek employment on compassionate ground is concerned, it cannot be accepted. Reason being that firstly his case was not at all considered. Secondly, there are specific pleas explaining circumstances in which the petitioner and his family is placed after the death of Tej Singh. 15. We further feel that in case mother of the petitioner had been informed about the fact that application for his appointment on compassionate ground is to be filed within one year of the date of death of her husband even where candidate is either minor and/or does not fulfil the educational qualification, rules provide for extension of time, there was no reason that mother of the petitioner would not have applied. From the signatures on the documents on the file of this writ, we are satisfied that mother of the petitioner is a rustic, illiterate village woman who can hardly sign in Hindi with difficulty, what to talk of her understanding the intricacies/implications of rules and regulations of the respondent-Bank. 16. From the signatures on the documents on the file of this writ, we are satisfied that mother of the petitioner is a rustic, illiterate village woman who can hardly sign in Hindi with difficulty, what to talk of her understanding the intricacies/implications of rules and regulations of the respondent-Bank. 16. Besides this even if it be assumed that mother of the petitioner is getting some pension from the Bank as well as Army Authorities, as was urged by Mr. Sood, still this cannot be a ground not to consider case of a person, like petitioner for his compassionate appointment. Reason being, pension is earned by an employee after having given best period of his life in the service. It is in the nature of property which he earns only after completing requisite number of years of service. It is neither a concession nor a bounty bestowed upon him/upon his family by the employer. So far benefit of leave encashment, gratuity, provident fund are concerned, similar is the position regarding these also. Therefore, plea of the respondent-Bank that mother of the petitioner has been released gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment and pension etc., disentitles the petitioner from appointment on compassionate ground cannot be accepted. 17. No other point is urged. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and looking to the peculiar circumstances, facts and background of this case, this writ petition is allowed and as a consequence of it, Annexure P-8, dated 8.8.2000 from respondent No. 2 to the mother of the petitioner as well as Annexure P-ll, dated 24.12.2002/ 15.2.2001 again from respondent No. 2 are hereby quashed and set aside. At the same time respondents are directed to re-examine the case of the petitioner in the light of what has been said hereinabove, in the special circumstances of this case and then pass appropriate orders, writ petition was finally heard and disposed of keeping in view its nature as well as prayer made on behalf of the parties through their learned Counsel, after it was formally admitted. W.P. disposed of. -