S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) CONSIDERATION given by the authorities-Petitioner, the son of deceased employee of State Bank of India has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon. Court under article 226 of the constitution for quashment of the impugned communication dated 27. 8. 2002 and for a writ of mandamus for appointment on compassionate ground. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts as are necessary for adjudication of the disputation in the present petition are that Sri Hans Nath tiwari a regular employee of State Bank of India died in harness on 31. 1. 1997 and at the time of his death he was serving as clerk-cum-cashier in the State Bank of india Belthera Road Branch Ballia. The mother of the petitioner sought compassionate appointment but the same met with disapproval of the Bank authorities and by means of communication dated 25. 5. 1999, the prayer was declined with cryptic order that indigent circumstances do not exist. Para 2 of the order enumerated resources and the fund, which the family was possessed of. The family was stated to be recipient of the following amount in the wake of the death of the sole breadwinner: Provident fund- Rs. 1. 96 lacs; gratuity-Rs. 1. 08 lacs and lump sum relief- Rs. 0. 20 lacs paid under Staff mutual Welfare Scheme; family pension rs. 3,421/- and monthly relief- Rs. 500/-under staff Mutual Welfare Scheme, moveable assets valued at Rs. 0. 30 lacs and immovable property valued at Rs. 3. 00 lacs, agricultural land of 4 Bighas yielding income of Rs. 5000/- per annum, interest income of Rs. 3000/- per month from investments and terminal dues claim of life Insurance Corporation of India policy of Rs. 50,000/- paid to the family and invested in term deposit with the bank. The Bank authority seemed to have assessed sufficiency of resources on the basis of the above and converged to the conclusion that the family did not suffer from scantiness of resources. Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted writ petition no. 30406 of 2000. This Court, while allowing the writ petition issued direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the observations embodied in the said judgment dated 9. 4. 2002. Again, the compassionate appointment was declined to the petitioner and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. 4. 2002. Again, the compassionate appointment was declined to the petitioner and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. ( 3 ) IN the instant petition, the petitioner has repudiated the contention stating that picture drawn by the Bank authorities as to the income has been magnified beyond all proportions and it has been spelt out that the lump sum amount of Rs. 1. 83 lacs has been enumerated by the Bank without discrediting the liability towards Bank loan. It was further submitted that the family pension has suffered diminution and has been rescheduled to Rs. 450/- per month on the basis of basic pay with effect from 1. 2. 2002. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the bank strenuously repudiated the claim of the petitioner to his claim to appointment on compassionate ground. However, he did not repudiate the factum of reduced pension and other contentions pertaining to income of the deceased family nor did he state in justification of the figures unfolded in its order by the Bank authorities. He placed copious reliance on various authorities both of this Court and the Apex Court. The cases cited in vindication of his hand are the decision in special Appeal No. 575 of 2000 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on 26. 3. 2003, decision rendered by a division Bench of Patna High Court dated in C. W. J. C. No. 11781 of 2002, Single judge decision in W. P. No. 7222 of 2002 dated 19. 12. 2002, Single Judge decision in Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. State of U. P. and others reported in (2002) 2 E. S. C. (All.), Division Bench decision of this court in Anand Kumar v. Union of India reported in (2992) 2 ESC (Alld ). ( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the record, it would transpire that the family is leading a very precarious existence. Before his death, the deceased suffered a protracted illness due to cancer and consequent treatment which sapped the family of whatever it had for purposes. It is stated in para 4 of the writ petition that lump sum amount of Rs. 1. Before his death, the deceased suffered a protracted illness due to cancer and consequent treatment which sapped the family of whatever it had for purposes. It is stated in para 4 of the writ petition that lump sum amount of Rs. 1. 83 lacs including all retiral benefits and to the exclusion of deduction of loan amount which admittedly was sanctioned by the Bank for treatment of the deceased and further that the family was initially sanctioned pension of Rs. 1267/- which was paid upto 31. 1. 2002 and thereafter, it suffered diminution and has been reduced to Rs. 450/ -. The assertion has not been denied by the respondent Bank in the counter affidavit. In para 14 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the land which has been taken into consideration adding to the source of income is not arable land nor the same is yielding any income. The averments in this para have not bee denied. It would thus appear that the Bank authorities have not scanned the entire facts and circumstances in correct perspective and stampeded into holding that there existed no indigent circumstances. It should not be lost sight of the fact that the employer in the instant case is a statutory body within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such, it has an obligation to act in terms of the avowed objective of social and economic justice as engrafted in the constitution. As enunciated by the Apex court in Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel authority of India. (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2055 "the concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and. . . . . . and the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts also to apply the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the society and whichever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the aw Court would be to administer justice having due regard in the direction. " It is in the context of the above observation that the Court feels disposed to screen the impugned order qua the condition of life in the aftermath of the death of sole bread earner. " It is in the context of the above observation that the Court feels disposed to screen the impugned order qua the condition of life in the aftermath of the death of sole bread earner. Upon regard being had to the factual matrix unfolded above, it would transpire that the Bank authorities were swayed to converge to the conclusion of sufficiency of resources and funds collected from varied sources without delving into its correctness, or reliability. It has not been reckoned with by the Bank authorities whether the resources delineated in para 2 of the impugned order were sufficient to keep the pot of the family boiling and whether the family would face resource crunch after meeting the liabilities left behind by the deceased employee. It brooks no dispute upon comparison of the assertions in the writ petition with the averments in the counter affidavit that the family received Rs. 1. 83 lacs including all retiral benefits to the exclusion of liabilities towards Banks loan and that the pension has since suffered diminution and stands reduced to Rs. 450/- per month only. It is also worthy of notice that two of the sisters have already been married off and the third sister has attained marriageable age and therefore, the resources which the family is possessed of cannot be adjudged to be sufficient to keep the pot boiling. In converging to the sufficiency of resources, the Bank authorities have not acted like a model and an ideal employer having regard to the avowed objective of social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution and executive imperviousness and zeal is more than apparent on which wrecked the repeated requests of the family for compassionate appointment. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the Bank authorities, the learned counsel has cited series of decisions. The first decision cited is a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal no. 575 of 2000 on 26. 3. 2003. It was a case in which family was receiving a pension of Rs. 6000/- per month and in this case the learned Single Judge upon consideration of the family resources and the pension had held that the family could not be said to be in distress. 575 of 2000 on 26. 3. 2003. It was a case in which family was receiving a pension of Rs. 6000/- per month and in this case the learned Single Judge upon consideration of the family resources and the pension had held that the family could not be said to be in distress. Be that as it may, it was a decision rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and it cannot be imported to be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Yet another case cited by the learned counsel is the order passed in Writ petition no. 7222 (S/s) of 2002 passed by learned Single Judge on 19. 12. 2002. This order does not contain any detailed discussion and the learned Single Judge converged to the conclusion that the family was not in distress ostensibly on the basis of income stated to be Rs. 6231/ -. This order stemmed from peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and thus cannot be called in aid in vindication of the stand as propounded by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank authorities. The third authority cited by the learned counsel is a decision of Patna high Court. In this decision rendered in c. W. J. C. No. 11781 of 2002. It is again a brief order in which any of the aspects as discussed in the ex-cathedra decisions of the Apex court has not been dwelt upon or discussed at length. This decision too is based on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be called in aid to distract me from the view I am taking in the matter. The fourth authority cited by the learned Counsel is Manoj Kumar tiwari v. State of U. P. and others decided by single Judge of this Court. It was a matter in which the deceased employee worked between 1961 to 1973 as Gram sewak and it was claimed that the family of the deceased. On this ground, the deceased family claimed compassionate appointment. It was a decision on peculiar facts and circumstances and does not involve any of the aspects as delineated in this petition. The last decision cited by the learned counsel is Anand Kumar v. Union of India and others passed in Writ Petition no. 16616 of 2001 decided on 24. 1. 2002. It was a decision on peculiar facts and circumstances and does not involve any of the aspects as delineated in this petition. The last decision cited by the learned counsel is Anand Kumar v. Union of India and others passed in Writ Petition no. 16616 of 2001 decided on 24. 1. 2002. In this case learned Tribunal was satisfied with the financial condition of the family and the Division Bench merely upheld the view taken by the Tribunal. This case too is distinguishable. ( 6 ) IN the earlier two decisions particularly the decision in Smt. Kanti srivastava v. State Bank of India Nariman point Mumbai and others, I have taken a consistent view having regard to the ratio decidendi in Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd and others, 2000 (3) ESC 1618 (SC)that feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and further that if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. In the instant case, as stated supra, the family has been received a meagre sum of Rs. 450/- since 1. 2. 2002 and having regard to the liabilities left behind by the deceased employee, the lump sum amount of Rs. 1. 83 lacs and the pension of rs. 450/- being paid to the family since 122002 are too paltry to be adjudged as sufficient to keep the pot boiling. The authorities have not given due consideration to the condition of the family and by this reckoning, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting, I would not forbear from observing that Constitutional philosophy of appointment on compassionate ground has its foundation in social justice and right to life. Having regard to this philosophy the social justice must prevail over any technical rule. In the instant case, the deceased employee was survived by three daughters and one son. Two daughters were married off out of whatever the family of the deceased was recipient as terminal benefits. As stated supra, the pension has now been downsized to Rs. 450/ -. This pension is too meagre to feed one son, one unmarried daughter and the widow of the deceased. Two daughters were married off out of whatever the family of the deceased was recipient as terminal benefits. As stated supra, the pension has now been downsized to Rs. 450/ -. This pension is too meagre to feed one son, one unmarried daughter and the widow of the deceased. By a rough reckoning, if the family of three is made to sustain itself on two square meal at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square meal per head, the family bereft of other basic facilities would need a sum of less than a sum of Rs. 1800/- for fooding alone excepting other necessities of life. I am, therefore, constrained to observe that while rejecting the request of the petitioner a second time pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Bank authorities showed their insensitivity at its crudest form and did not seem to act like a model and an ideal employer. Rather they seemed to be oblivious that they were authorities within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution and were obligated to act in terms of avowed objective of social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances discussed above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner having regard to the financial condition in the light of what has been discussed in the present petition.