Judgment Ajay Rastogi J.-At joint request and with consent of parties, matter has been heard finally and disposed of at admission stage. 2. Instant petition has been filed seeking compassionate appointment by one of dependents of Dhanna Lal, who was working as Officer in respondent Bank, and died while in service on 19.02.2000, leaving behind his legal heirs-widow, one son and daughter, none of whom is in employment - in support whereof an affidavit (Annexure R.5) was submitted by petitioners mother; as such petitioner submitted application (Annexure 2) seeking compassionate appointment which was rejected by respondents vide Note (Annexure R.6) prepared by Board of Director in its meeting held on 25.01.2003 on the premise that deceased had agricultural land measuring 3.57 hectares and on account of death of petitioners father, family of deceased has already received retrial/terminal benefits admissible to the deceased including payment of encashment of earned leave, employees provident fund, death claim of life insurance and group insurance, etc., which amounted to Rs. 11,48,748.56 p., which was sufficient for his family to tide over financial crisis upon death of Dhanna Lal (against which the heirs have come out with explanation that they are having liabilities to meet out for a sum of Rs. 4,83,523/-). Hence this petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner contends that under Scheme for compassionate appointment Rules (Annexure R.1), retrial terminal dues paid to family of deceased could be considered as basis for denial of appointment only if one of members of family of deceased is already in employment in the Bank or elsewhere and second son/daughter is claiming appointment under compassionate Rules; whereas in case of instant petitioner, none of heirs of deceased is in employment; as such invoking Cl.10 of Scheme of Compassionate appointment Rules for rejecting claim of petitioner by respondents is wholly arbitrary and in violation of Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Rules and so also Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of Inida, 2000 (6) SCC 493 and Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC of India, 2005 (10) SCC 289 . 4. In support of his contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of Inida, 2000 (6) SCC 493 and Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC of India, 2005 (10) SCC 289 . 4. Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that apart from Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Rules (Annexure R.1) promulgated by respondent Bank, it has to take into consideration Circular dated 17.06.1996 issued by NABARD and followed by respondents sponsoring Punjab National Bank, which laid down guidelines in consonance with observations made by Apex Court in Umesh Nagpal vs. State of Hariana, 1994 (3) JT 525 (SC); as such taking note of observations made by Apex Court and so also guidelines issued by Punjab National Bank and NABARD, the Committee of respondent Bank in its meeting considered financial condition of family of the deceased and opined that pensionary benefits and interest which the family would get apart from earnings from their agricultural holdings, would be sufficient to meet out sudden financial crisis occurred due to death of earning member and accordingly has not found fit case for compassionate appointment under existing Scheme of rules. 5. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Undisputed facts on record are that none in family of the deceased is in employment, and petitioner, who is elder son submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment under Scheme (Annexure R.1) which came into force from 012.1982 and under Clause10 if widow or son or daughter of deceased employee is either serving in the Bank or elsewhere and looking to their family and other circumstances, if application is submitted for 2nd son/daughter for seeking compassionate appointment, financial status of family could be the consideration to adjudge his eligibility for appointment under Scheme of rules. Clause 10 reads as under :- **10- ;fn fo/kok] iq= ;k iq=h igys gh cSad easvFkok vU;= fu;Dr gks rks cSad izsqR;d ekeys dh vyx vyx qifjfLFkfr;ks ij /;ku nsus ds ckn vFkkZr ifjokj ds igys ls fu;fDr lnL; dh vk;] ifjokj dk vkdkj ifjokj dh ifjlEifÙk;ka vkSj nkf ;Ro rFkk vU; lE;d rF;kasij fopkj djds nwljs iq= vFkok iq=h dks fu;fDr iznku djus ij vius foosdk/khu fopkj dj ldrk gS ijUrq ;fn bl izdkj dh fu; fDr ds fy;s dksbZz nwljk iq= ;k iq=h u gks rks ml ekeys esa cSad vU;= fu;Dr rFkk vU;Fkk fu;fqad dh ik= fo/kok ;k iq= ;k iq=h dks cSfu; qfDr ikus dk fodYi iznku dj ldrk gS** 6. it is not in dispute that no amendment has been made so far in Scheme of Compassionate Appointment Rules (Annexure R. 1) introduced by respondent Bank. It is true that whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis and to relieve the family from financial destitution, which it faced at the time of death of sole breadwinner. 7. Question arises as to whether terminal benefits paid to family of the deceased employee which are admissible under rules can be considered as a basis, to deny compassionate appointment to the applicant, who is otherwise eligible under Compassionate appointment rules. Very controversy has occasioned before Apex Court to examine in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC (Supra) wherein it observed as under:- "6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half , and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amount admissible under the Rules." Apex Court also observed that if family owns a piece of land and one of members of the family cultivates the field and is engaged in cultivation, it could not be considered as gainful employment. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amount admissible under the Rules." Apex Court also observed that if family owns a piece of land and one of members of the family cultivates the field and is engaged in cultivation, it could not be considered as gainful employment. Thus viewed, inference of gainful employment on the ground of possession or cultivation of agricultural fields by family members could not be acted upon and terminal benefit received by the widow besides family pension could not be taken into account while examining application for compassionate appointment. 8. In instant case also, there is no requirement as held by respondents while taking the impugned decision, even under Scheme of compassionate appointment (Annexure R.1), which has never been amended so far and that apart, in my opinion terminal benefits received by family of the deceased which even otherwise are admissible under Rules, cannot be considered as a basis for holding applicant disentitled for compassionate appointment. Apex Court in Umesh Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (Supra), observed to examine financial condition of family as one of considerations while examining application for compassionate appointment, but in case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC (Supra), it has been observed that while examining financial condition, what has been paid to the widow under Rules is not a material consideration for compassionate appointment. 9. In instant case, there are compassionate appointments Rules (Annexure R.1) -that came into force on 012.1982 and covers case of the petitioner. In my considered opinion, decision taken by respondents to deny compassionate appointment to him on the premise that widow of deceased employee received payment of terminal benefits besides family pension, was totally arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 10. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank (Annexure R. 3) and Note (Annexure R-6) are set aside. Respondents are directed to consider application (Annexure 2) of petitioner afresh for compassionate appointment under Scheme of Rules (Annexure R-1) notwithstanding the widow has received terminal benefits besides family pension admissible under rules and pass appropriate orders in the light of what has been observed Supra. All exercise to comply with this order be made within two months. No costs.