JANARDAN SAHAI, J. Heard Sri K. C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. L. Grover, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. 2. The father of the petitioner Vijay Kumar Pandey was a Clerk in Punjab National Bank. He died in harness on 7-8-1997 leaving behind his mother, two sons and one unmarried daughter. The bank has framed a scheme for giving employment to the dependants of deceased employees dying in harness, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After the death of the petitioners father an application was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected by the Bank vide letter dated 3-11-1999 of the Manager of the Punjab National Bank, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the letter of the Head Office of Deputy General Manager, copy of which has been filed as Annexure C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit. There were two grounds upon which the application was rejected. The first ground is that certain misconduct was alleged against the deceased employee Vijay Kumar Pandey and the second ground is that the family pension payable to the family members of the deceased is Rs. 4,287 and terminal dues payable Rs. 1. 73 lacs. 3. Sri K. C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner has been rejected on irrelevant grounds. It is submitted by him that the mere fact that there were allegations of misconduct against the deceased is no ground for rejecting the application unless the order of dismissal was passed against him and as the deceased was in employment on the date of his death and the application for appointment on compassionate ground had to be considered by the respondents on merits. The second submission of the Sri K. C. Shukla is that the respondents have not taken into account the liabilities of the family as the deceased had left behind a dependent mother, two sons and unmarried daughter and one of the sons, the brother of the petitioner was a student of M. B. B. S. It is also submitted that the family pension of Rs. 4,287 and the terminal dues of Rs. 1. 73 lacs were not sufficient for resolving the financial crises of the family. He submits that the order rejecting the application for appointment has been passed without application of mind and without considering the relevant aspects. 4. Sri K. L. Grover, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank on the other hand contends that a criminal case was pending against the deceased, father of the petitioner and it would be deemed that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. He placed reliance upon Paragraph 3 of the circular. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is quoted below : "in the cases where any disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated at the time of death of the employee or the employee was proceeded against before death and the details of disciplinary action cases along with the extent of financial loss, if any, caused or likely to be caused to the bank, must be conveyed along with the proposal. " 5. A perusal of paragraph 3 shows that even in cases where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated it has to be seen whether any financial loss had been caused. No material has been shown to indicate as to whether any financial loss was caused by the father of the petitioner. As such paragraph 3 of the aforesaid circular is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In my opinion the respondents have erred in taking account the fact that there were allegations of misconduct against the petitioner in the absence of any material to indicate as to what financial loss had been caused by the deceased. 6. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the bank has framed its own scheme. Reference has been made to the object of the scheme in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Sri Grover submits that the object to the scheme is to provide compassionate employment to the dependent of an employee dying in harness leaving his family without any means of livelihood, and that the bank will consider compassionate appointment only in such cases where it is satified that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is such that but for the provision of employment to his dependent, the family will to be unable to meet the crisis it faces at the time of death of the said employee. Sri Grover also places reliance upon paragraph 10 of the circular Annexure-1, which lays down the facts to be taken into account for determining the financial condition of the family. It is submitted by Sri Grover that the family pension mentioned in Item No. 10 (1) of the Circular which was available to the family members was Rs. 4,287 (terminal dues) and the gratuity amount available to the family members was Rs. 1. 73 lacs and he contends that as these amounts were available to the family there was no financial crisis. Item No. 10 (H) of the circular provides that the size of the family and liabilities, if any, of the family have also to be taken into account. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Head Quarters, Annexure C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit and the letter of the Manager, Annexure-3 to the writ petition indicates that the respondents have not taken into account at all the size of the family members of the deceased nor the fact that one of the sons of the deceased was a student of M. B. B. S. and also that fact that the mother of the deceased was an old lady of 85 years and one daughter was unmarried and the petitioner himself B. Com. was also unemployed. It is, thus, evident that even as per the requirement of the scheme framed by the Bank the respondents have not adverted to the relevant aspects of the matter. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Honble Court 2001 (2) ESC 876, State Bank of India and others v. Ram Piyarey Adult, in which on the facts of that case it was held that mere payment of family pension of Rs. 2,150 per month and further sum of Rs. 1. 42 lacs to the widow after deducting the loan amount and a further sum of Rs. 500 per month disclosed by the family member of the deceased themselves as their income from other sources were held to be insufficient and it was further held in paragraph 9 of the said judgment that the receipt of family pension by the widow of Rs. 1. 42 lacs paid to widow after deducting the loan cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the case of appointment on compassionate ground. 1. 42 lacs paid to widow after deducting the loan cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the case of appointment on compassionate ground. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision in Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, 2000 (2) LBESR 503 (SC) : 2000 (3) ESC 1618 (SC), in which it was held on the terms of the settlement which were under consideration in that case that the mere fact that certain benefits were available to the family of the deceased under the 1989 Bipartite Agreement would not serve as a substitute for compassionate appointment to be given to the dependent of the deceased employee which was available to him under the provision of earlier Bipartite Agreement of 1983. In the present case, however, the bank has framed its own Rules copy of which have been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the question of grant of compassionate appointment to an employee of the deceased who died in harness has to be governed by the said Rules. In view of the discussion made above that the size of the family and the resources and the liabilities of the family had to be taken into account to which the respondents have not adverted. The respondents ought to have taken into consideration the (sic) of the expenses in studies in M. B. B. S. were to be increased in respect of one of the family members and the other liabilities referred to above, it is clear that the order passed by the respondents cannot be sustained. 8. Sri Grover then contended that under paragraph 6 (a) of the circular, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition the application for appointment has to be taken not later than one year from the death of the employee. It is submitted that the petitioner made an application on 2-10- 1998 whereas the deceased died on 7-8-1997. He places reliance upon paragraph 4 of the counter- affidavit. The averments made in paragraph 4 have been replied in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder- affidavit. The petitioner has stated that application for appointment for the first time was made on 18-8- 1997. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents has no force. He places reliance upon paragraph 4 of the counter- affidavit. The averments made in paragraph 4 have been replied in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder- affidavit. The petitioner has stated that application for appointment for the first time was made on 18-8- 1997. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents has no force. Firstly in the order rejecting the application for appointment on compassionate ground, this is not one of the grounds taken. In case this was true the Bank would have rejected the application on this ground. Secondly, it is not open to the bank to take this ground in as much as the Bank itself has considered the case of the petitioner on merits and it is not a case where the bank may have refused to consider the case on this ground of delay. Thirdly, paragraph 6 (a) does not provide for any period of limitation resulting in inevitable rejection of the application if it is filed after one year. It is merely a guideline emphasising the fact that the application has to be made at the earliest. It does not tie down the hands of the Bank to consider an application filed after one year in proper cases. In the rejoinder-affidavit it is stated that when the petitioner first applied on 18-8-1997 he was minor and he again applied on 22-10-1998 on attaining majority. Apart from the fact that the majority of the petitioner was itself a valid ground for explaining the delay in making the application dated 22-10-1998, the delay in any case is of about 2 months only and the application cannot be rejected on ground of delay. 9. In view of the discussion made above the petition is allowed. The order Annexure-3 to the writ petition dated 3-11-1999 and Annexure C. A. 3 of the counter-affidavit dated 11-10-1999 passed by the head quarters of the Bank are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Zonal Authority to consider the matter in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law preferably within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 3. Petition allowed. .