Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book. 2. The father of the petitioner who had been working as a Guard with the respondents-Bank died on 10.5.1997. According to the petitioner, the deceased was the sole bread-earner of the family. Due to his sudden demise, the family fell into acute financial crisis as there was no other earning member in the family. On 22.9.1997, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents-Bank for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents-Bank has framed a scheme called "Scheme for Appointment in Clerical and/or Subordinate Cadres of Dependents of Deceased Employees of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on Compassionate Grounds" (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme"). The Scheme is contained in Circular No. PER 29/87 dated 28.3.1987. The aforesaid Scheme has been modified by Circular No. PER/115/96-97 dated 11.3.1997 (Annexure P-4). The application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by order dated 13.1.1999. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 11400 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition on 21.10.2003 with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 24.12.2003. The respondents have passed a detailed order setting out the reasons in support of the impugned order. Dealing with the claim of the petitioner, it has been observed that mother of the petitioner was receiving Rs. 1092 as family pension from the Bank and Rs. 1479/- from defence services under Central Civil Services Pension Rules . It is not disputed that apart from owning a house, the family also owns agricultural land measuring 14 Kanals and 14 Marias. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land gives an income of Rs. 6000-7000 per annuni. The petitioner has also mentioned in the representation that he is a post-graduate with Diploma in Computer Programming having good knowledge of English typing. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land gives an income of Rs. 6000-7000 per annuni. The petitioner has also mentioned in the representation that he is a post-graduate with Diploma in Computer Programming having good knowledge of English typing. In the initial application for appointment dated 28.10.1998, the petitioner had also stated that his brother had passed Class X. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the respondents have observed that the petitioner and his brother having attained the age of 18 and 19 years in the year 1998, respectively, are capable of earning livelihood independently and add to the income of the family. It has also been observed that since sister of the petitioner has been married, she cannot be treated as dependent on the deceased father. According to the assessment made by the respondents, the agricultural land owned by the petitioners family is situated in irrigated and fertile area. On the basis of the enquiries made, the annual income from the agricultural land has been assessed at Rs. 30,000/- approximately. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner after taking into consideration the objective for which the scheme has been framed by the respondent-bank. The order has been passed, after taking due notice of the law laid down by the Supreme Court also. Counsel for the respondents has argued that the present matter is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma V/s. Punjab National Bank and Ors., C.W.P. No. 6542 of 2003, decided on 2.12.2004. The decision in the aforesaid judgment was based on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana, 1994(3) Service Cases Today 174. Considering the circumstances in which appointment can be granted on compassionate grounds, the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) has held as under:- "6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread-winner, the compassionate employment cannot claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 3. In the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma, the Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (S.S. Nijjar, J.) was a member, took notice of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following words.:- "The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpals case (supra) has clearly held that as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. However, an exception, out of pure humanitarian considerations has been made in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. A provision is, therefore, made to enable the family to make both ends meet. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for the post held by the deceased. Furthermore, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crises that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.." 4. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The father of the petitioner passed away on 10.5.1997. The petitioner himself is a highly qualified person. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The father of the petitioner passed away on 10.5.1997. The petitioner himself is a highly qualified person. Even his other brother passed Class X in the year 1998 when the initial application was made for appointment on compassionate grounds. The objective of the policy is clearly to render assistance to the family under emergent and compelling circumstances and sudden crisis. In the Circular dated 11.3.1998, the objects of the Scheme have been set out as follows:- "(i) Object of the scheme: The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread winner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such a livelihood. The object of the Scheme would be to offer compassionate appointments only when the Bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This will apply mutatesmutandis to the Scheme for appointment of dependents of employees who retire on medical grounds." 5. The objects are in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra). The claim of the petitioner having been duly considered cannot be said to have been rejected either arbitrarily or unreasonably. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition.