JUDGMENT By the Court.—This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court preferred against the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 29.11.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 35093 of 2006 dismissing the appellant’s writ petition claiming compassionate appointment. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge. It appears that the father of the appellant died in harness on 31.8.1999. He therefore, applied for giving compassionate appointment. The application of the appellant was rejected considering the financial position of the family of the deceased employee whereagainst the appellant alongwith his mother filed Writ Petition No. 30342 of 2001 disputing the facts stated in the order impugned in the said writ petition. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 13.8.2001 directing the Chief Manager (Personal and HRD) State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow to consider the appellant’s version and pass a fresh order. That Bank thereafter vide order dated 26.11.2001 rejected the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment considering his financial status including the property he inherited from his deceased father and also various terminal benefits received by the family after the death of the deceased father. Again the appellant came to this Court challenging the said order in Writ Petition No. 269 of 2002 which was allowed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide judgment dated 6.10.2004 holding that the terminal benefits received be the family should not be taken into consideration to determine whether the family of an employee dying-in-harness is suffering the financial crisis justifying compassionate appointment and setting aside the order impugned in the said writ petition a direction was issued to the competent authority to pass a fresh order. The Bank came in Special Appeal No. 1473 of 2004 against the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge which was disposed of vide judgment dated 9.11.2004 modifying the judgment of the Hon’ble single Judge and taking the view that the post retiral benefits can be taken into account for the purpose of determining financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and accordingly directed the Bank to consider the application and pass a fresh order. The appellant went in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. CC 3986 of 2005 which was dismissed on 15.4.2005 confirming the judgment passed in special appeal. The appellant went in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. CC 3986 of 2005 which was dismissed on 15.4.2005 confirming the judgment passed in special appeal. Thereafter the Bank passed a fresh order considering the entire matter including terminal benefits received by the family of the deceased employee and noticing that the total monthly income of the family is more than the last paid monthly salary of the employee and therefore the financial condition of the family was penurious justifying compassionate appointment to the appellant and accordingly rejected his claim. Against this order the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 35093 of 2006 which has been dismissed by the Single Judge vide judgment under appeal observing that the issue as to whether terminal benefits can be taken into consideration for determining financial condition of the family having attained finality between the parties the same cannot be allowed to be reagitated in the writ petition and further that the terminal benefits is a relevant factor was already decided by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and others v. Durgesh Kumar Tewari, (Civil Appeal No. 996 of 2006, decided on 6.2.2006) and therefore it cannot be said that the order passed by the Bank warrant any interference. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of the law laid down in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2005 (10) SCC 289 , the terminal benefits paid to the family of the deceased employee cannot be taken into account for determining financial condition of the family and therefore the respondent-Bank has erred in law in rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment on the aforesaid grounds. 4. We do not find any substance in the submission for two reasons. Firstly, this issue has already attained finality between the parties inasmuch as in Special Appeal No. 1473 of 2004 preferred by the Bank wherein the appellant was respondent, this Court categorically held as under : “Thus in view of the decisions referred to above, the judgment of the learned Judge directing the bank not to consider the post retiral benefits for the purposes of calculating the financial income of the family cannot be sustained. The respondent Bank while deciding the application for compassionate appointment shall, therefore, take into consideration the retiral benefits also for determining the financial condition of the family of the deceased. The judgment and the order of the learned Judge is modified subject to the observations made above.” 5. It has not been disputed that against the aforesaid judgment, the appellant went in appeal before the Apex Court and his S.L.P. was dismissed on 15.4.2005 and therefore the said judgment has attained finality. This issue, therefore, has already been decided against the appellant and now it is not open to the appellant to reagitate the same when the Bank has passed a fresh order consistent with the direction and law laid down by this Court as aforesaid. Moreover, the judgment relied by the appellant in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) does not help him for the reason that the scheme applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation which came up for consideration before the Apex Court, it appears, did not contain any specific provision permitting the Life Insurance Corporation to take into account the terminal benefits for determining financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, but the scheme applicable to the State Bank of India which is relevant for the purpose, it is specifically provided therein that the terminal benefits paid to the family of the deceased employee shall be taken into consideration for determining the financial condition of the family as is apparent from Clause-1 of the scheme, relevant part whereof is extracted as under : “(1) 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, there of an important criterion for deciding the proposed for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account of determining the financial condition of the family : (i) Family pension, (ii) gratuity amount received, (iii) employee’s/employer’s contribution to provident fund, (iv) any compensation paid by the Bank or its welfare fund. The following factors should be taken into account of determining the financial condition of the family : (i) Family pension, (ii) gratuity amount received, (iii) employee’s/employer’s contribution to provident fund, (iv) any compensation paid by the Bank or its welfare fund. (v) proceeds of LIC Policies and other investments of the deceased employees, (vi) in come of family from other sources, (vii) in come of other family members from employment, or otherwise, (viii) size of the family and liabilities, if any." 6. In the light of the specific provision contained in the scheme it cannot be said that the Bank erred in law in considering the terminal benefits received by the family of the deceased employee in order to determining the financial condition of the family and to see whether family is in penury justifying compassionate appointment. 7. In this view of the matter we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition or the judgment under appeal. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. ————