Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER in this writ petition has claimed compassionate appointment in the State Bank of India. ( 2. ) PETITIONERs father; Late Ramsanehi Pushpraj was in employment of the respondent; State Bank of India. He died on 15-3-2000. He worked on the post of Messenger and posted at Mauganj Branch of State Bank of India. He drew salary to the tune of Rs. 7200/- at the time of his death. He was survived by three sons and three daughters. His wife expired during his life time. Petitioner is the third son. Other two elder brother are; Shri Anant Ram is married and living separately and involved in business of growing flowers and is a gardener. Second son; Hariram is a Shikshakarmi and is in Government service, posted at Chhattarpur. Two daughters out of three are married and living with their husband. Petitioner and one unmarried sister are living together. It is alleged that they have no source of income and financial support either from brothers, sisters and other relatives. No agricultural land has been left by the father. Loan of Rs. 25,000/- was taken. Further loan for treatment of Shri Ramsanehi pushpraj was taken. Certain retiral dues have been received, which have been utilized for repayment of the loan. Petitioner; Shri Ramnath Pushpraj applied for compassionate appointment by filing application (P-4) on 21-11-2000. Application has been rejected as per communication (P-5), dated 22-10-2001. Again a prayer was made which has been rejected as communicated vide letter (P-7) dated 8-7-2002. Petitioner claimed that he is entitled for compassionate appointment as per the scheme. Thus, the decision not to offer appointment is illegal. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by the respondents. It is contended in the return that total terminal benefits of Rs. 2,06,867. 74 were paid. Amount besides two insurance policies was also paid to the family of the deceased. Thus, the family of the deceased received an amount of Rs. 3,12,409. 75. Actual payment made was Rs. 2,82,646. 75 after deduction of loan amount of rs. 29,763/ -. The said amount carried interest of Rs. 2,235/-, the family of the deceased is being paid a sum of Rs. 2,287/- by way of pension per month. They have their own house and agriculture holding of 3 bighas. There is income of rs. 75. Actual payment made was Rs. 2,82,646. 75 after deduction of loan amount of rs. 29,763/ -. The said amount carried interest of Rs. 2,235/-, the family of the deceased is being paid a sum of Rs. 2,287/- by way of pension per month. They have their own house and agriculture holding of 3 bighas. There is income of rs. 500/- per month from the agricultural land, which has been mentioned by the petitioner in his application, thus, the family of the deceased has an income of approximately Rs. 5,022/- per month. The basic salary of the deceased was rs. 4,488/- per month. There is hardly any difference in the monthly income of the family. Family can not be said to in penurious condition so as to warrant compassionate appointment. Competent Authority considered the entire matter and found that the financial condition of the family of the deceased was not penurious and rejected the application vide order (R-2) dated 26-9-2001 which was communicated as per memo (R-3) dated 8-10-2001. Policy contained in memo (R-4) dated 6-2-1997 provides the relevant criteria for assessing the financial condition. Case has been considered in accordance therewith. Petitioner is aged about 29 years and owns house, agricultural land and family is having income by way of pension and interest. Thus, the circumstances are not such which warrant compassionate appointment, which is an exception to general rule of appointment to be made by inviting application from open market. ( 4. ) SHRI Bhagwan Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the decision not to appoint is illegal, arbitrary. Figures have been worked out in the return in imaginary fashion. He has further submitted that 3 bighas of the agricultural land can not be said to be sufficient holding left by the deceased. The income of Rs. 500/- per month from agricultural land can not be said to be adequate income. Thus, case may be directed to be reconsidered. The other family members who are earning are living separately, as such a case has been made out for grant of compassionate appointment. ( 5. ) SHRI Ashish Shroti, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the deceased has left six members; three sons and three daughters. Two sons are already earning members. One of the son is government servant. Two daughters have been married. ( 5. ) SHRI Ashish Shroti, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the deceased has left six members; three sons and three daughters. Two sons are already earning members. One of the son is government servant. Two daughters have been married. There is agricultural holding which fact has been suppressed. Though it was mentioned in the application that the petitioner was having income of Rs. 500/- per month from the agricultural land, the family is receiving sufficient pension and interest is also earned from the amount of retiral dues which have been paid, thus, as per the financial condition it can not be said that the family is in penurious condition and compassionate appointment is not warranted in the instant case. ( 6. ) IN the policy (R-4) financial condition has to be assessed on the following considerations:- "financial condition of the family: appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family is, therefore, an important criterion for determining the eligibility for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account for determining the financial condition of the family:- (a) Family Pension (b) Gratuity amount received (c) Employees/employers contribution to Provident Fund (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund (e) Proceeds of LIC policies and other investments of the deceased employee (f) Income for family from other sources (g) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any. 3. Please arrange accordingly. Please also being the contents of this circular to the notice of all concerned. " ( 7. ) IT is not in dispute that family is receiving the pension of rs. 2,287/- per month. In addition, petitioner himself has mentioned in the application seeking compassionate appointment that he was having agricultural income of Rs. 500/ -. In addition the retiral dues to the extent of rs. 2,82,646. 74 were paid, income from the interest thereon also accrue. ) IT is not in dispute that family is receiving the pension of rs. 2,287/- per month. In addition, petitioner himself has mentioned in the application seeking compassionate appointment that he was having agricultural income of Rs. 500/ -. In addition the retiral dues to the extent of rs. 2,82,646. 74 were paid, income from the interest thereon also accrue. The petitioner is having his own house, agricultural land, family as in receipt of pension and two sons are already settled, two daughters have been married, in my opinion, it can not be said that the family is in a "penurious condition". Age of the petitioner was 27 years at the time of death of deceased. Family condition can not be said to be such to invoke extra-ordinary power to offer compassionate appointment. ( 8. ) IN Union of India Vs. Joginder Sharma, (2002) 8 SCC 65 , the apex Court has laid down that the compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the sole breadwinner, who died leaving the family in penury and without sufficient means of livelihood. ( 9. ) IN LIC Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 = air 1994 SC 2148 , the Apex Court has observed that simply by the fact that the claimant is at the prime of his life and youth and is aged about 21 years can not claim compassionate appointment. It has to be in accordance with the provision. ( 10. ) IN Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994)4 SCC 138 , the Apex Court has held that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment. It has to be seen whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the employees death. ( 11. ) IN all cases such appointment has not been offered has reiterated by the Apex Court in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Pramoda Dei, (1997) 11 SCC 390 , the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis. ( 12. ( 11. ) IN all cases such appointment has not been offered has reiterated by the Apex Court in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Pramoda Dei, (1997) 11 SCC 390 , the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis. ( 12. ) SIMILAR is the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 , means of livelihood has to be seen and overall position of the family is one of the relevant consideration. ( 13. ) SIMILAR is the law laid down in S. Mohan Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 9 SCC 485 and in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 . ( 14. ) IN view of the above discussion, in my opinion, it can not be said that the family of the deceased employee is in penurious condition. There is sufficient income as compared to the salary of the deceased employee and it is not that by way of right such appointment can be claimed. Office held by deceased is no hereditary. Petitioner has suppressed from the petition the fact that agricultural land is owned, though this fact was mentioned in the application. In any view of the matter as the house, agricultural land is owned by the family. The family is in receipt of pension, has an income from the agricultural land and also from the interest. Other four members of family are well settled, in my opinion, no case has been made out to warrant an interference in this writ petition. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.