ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. In 1997, a scheme was propounded by the appellants for compassionate appointment of the heirs of the deceased employee of the appellants. On 23-8-1996, the Indian Banks Association issued directions to the Banks regarding the nature of compassionate appointment. In compliance with the instructions so issued a scheme was formulated on 9-1-1997. 3. The respondents are the heirs of an employee of the appellants who died on 9-8-1996. Subsequent to the death of the employee, Respondent 1 made an application for the purpose of being appointed under the scheme as prevalent on the date of his father's death for an appointment. That was rejected on 9-1-1998. 4. In the meanwhile, on 9-1-1997, a new scheme in compliance with the IBA's instructions was published by the appellants. Therefore, after the rejection of his case, Respondent 1 filed another representation before the appellants on 27-1-1998 asking for reconsideration of his case in view of the revised policy. The appellants also rejected this representation after considering Respondent l's eligibility under the revised policy of 1997. The rejection which was made on 29-1-1999 was challenged by Respondent 1 by way of a writ application in 2001 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application on finding that the family possessed substantial assets as the widow of the deceased was receiving family pension as stated in the letter which was annexed to the writ petition. It was found that no ground had been made out for a direction for appointment of Respondent 1. 5. Respondent 1 then preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench held that if the 1997 scheme was taken into account, perhaps Respondent 1 did not have any case. However, the Division Bench was' of the view that the appellants should reconsider the matter in accordance with the earlier scheme prevalent at the time when Respondent l's father died. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there was already a consideration of Respondent l's application under the earlier scheme. After such consideration, the application was rejected as stated earlier. This was not challenged by Respondent 1. On the contrary, he himself asked for reconsideration of the case under the new scheme propounded in 1997. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there was already a consideration of Respondent l's application under the earlier scheme. After such consideration, the application was rejected as stated earlier. This was not challenged by Respondent 1. On the contrary, he himself asked for reconsideration of the case under the new scheme propounded in 1997. It is said that there was no question of again reconsidering Respondent l's case under the old scheme. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 1 states that his case should be considered in accordance with the order of this Court in State Bank of India v. Akeel Ahmed Khan . 7. As far as the appellants' contention is concerned, we are of the view that, having regard to the facts of the case, the Division Bench erred in directing reconsideration of the matter under the old scheme. The appellants are correct in their submission that the issue could not be reopened since the earlier order of rejection of the application which had been considered under the earlier scheme had not been challenged by Respondent 1. As far as the second scheme is concerned, neither the Division Bench nor the Single Judge had found in favour of Respondent We are also not prepared to follow the order given by us in State Bank of India v. Akeel Ahmed Khan!. We have clarified that order, subsequently on 18-10-2005t, in which it is recorded that the appellants had not followed any principle in granting relief to the heirs of Mr Javed Akhtar. We are of the view that the scheme as propounded by the appellants should have been followed in making appointments on compassionate ground and it is not open to the appellants to deviate therefrom. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Division Bench insofar as it directs reconsideration of the appellants' case under the old scheme is set aside. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.