JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan for the respondent-bank and perused the records of both the writ petitions. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 3.5.2005 by which the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. The husband of the petitioner was working as Clerk/Vivek Typist in the Union Bank of India and posted at Ballia. He died in harness on 22.3.1999 and the petitioner moved an application alongwith relevant documents seeking compassionate appointment on 10.4.1999. By an order dated 19.2.2000 the claim was rejected on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had not completed ten years of service in the respondent-bank and as such she was not entitled for compassionate appointment. This was subjected to challenge in writ petition No. 43349 of 2003 and after exchange of pleadings the said writ petition was allowed by a reasoned order on 3.3.2005 holding that under the scheme there was no such limitation and as such it remanded the matter to the respondent-bank to consider her claim afresh in view of the scheme dated 19.2.1997. 4. In pursuance thereof the said impugned order has been passed rejecting her claim on various grounds, which we would presently examine. 5. When this petition was heard on 7.7.2005 it was directed to come up alongwith record of earlier writ petition which had been allowed on 3.3.2005. 6. Before examining the grounds on which the claim has been rejected, it would be appropriate to examine the background facts. 7. Admittedly, the deceased husband of the petitioner who joined the Bank in September, 1989 died in harness at the age of 33 years leaving behind his widow, the petitioner aged about 30 years and two sons and a daughter who were minors and students. The total terminal benefits payable at the time of death under the heads of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Insurance and Leave encashment amounted to Rs. 3,02,640 while the liability under various loans was Rs. 2,13,800 so the net payable amount was only Rs. 88,840 which according to the Bank itself could have earned interest of Rs. 740 only. In the order dated 19.2.2000 the Bank admits that the entire burden of the family has fallen on the shoulder of the petitioner as there is no other earning member in the family. 2,13,800 so the net payable amount was only Rs. 88,840 which according to the Bank itself could have earned interest of Rs. 740 only. In the order dated 19.2.2000 the Bank admits that the entire burden of the family has fallen on the shoulder of the petitioner as there is no other earning member in the family. The husband of the petitioner would have normally been in service till the year 2024 or 2026 depending on the retirement age. 8. In the aforesaid background, let us examine the ground on which the claim has been rejected. 9. In paragraph 9 of the impugned order the first ground taken for rejection is that “the deceased employee had served the Bank for a very short period.” This very ground was repelled by this Court in its judgment dated 3.3.2005 passed in the earlier writ petition. The second ground of rejection is that “family of the deceased employee received a terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 3.02 lacs”. This is palpably false and misleading. The net amount allegedly paid to the petitioner was only Rs. 88,840 which admittedly could earn a monthly income of Rs. 740 only. The next ground given is that “the present claim, after a lapse of six years from the death of the employee, defeats the very object of the scheme”. This ground is also palpably false as it is the own case of the respondent-Bank that after the death of her husband on 22.3.1999 the petitioner had applied within a month on 10.4.1999. Thereafter, the order goes on to recite that the claim of compassionate appointment is not a vested right but it holds that "it is to be granted at its discretion only in deserving cases." 10. As noted hereinabove, out of three grounds given for rejecting the claim, two have been found to be false or misleading. Can a family of four, including three minor students survive on notional monthly in come of Rs. 740-? The answer can only be a big no. No doubt, none can claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right but the Bank which is a Government of India Undertaking has to act in a fair manner. The scheme framed by it and so also recited in the impugned order reflects that the object of compassionate appointment is “to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises”. No doubt, none can claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right but the Bank which is a Government of India Undertaking has to act in a fair manner. The scheme framed by it and so also recited in the impugned order reflects that the object of compassionate appointment is “to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises”. But twice the bank has rejected her claim firstly on non-existing ground and secondly on false or misleading grounds. She has been made to approach this Court second time which reflects that the Bank has a closed mind and does not want to abide by the scheme framed by itself. Being an instrumentality of the State, it has to justify deviation from its policy enshrined under the scheme. It is not their case that no compassionate appointment was given under the scheme to anyone. 11. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank contended that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court against the order dated 19.2.2000 after a delay of 3-1/2 years and the Court did not consider the issue of laches and allowed the writ petition. Be it so, admittedly no appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2005 and this Court in coordinate jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal against the said judgment. 12. Next it is urged that now since more than six years have expired and the family has managed to survive, thus, giving any relief at this point of time would defeat the object of lending a helping hand to tide over the sudden crises. Foremost, such a plea cannot be raised by the Bank because the widow had approached them within a month claiming compassionate appointment and the Bank rejected her claim and forced her to approach this Court earlier. Again it has rejected her claim which grounds have been held to be incorrect or misleading. 13. Lastly it is urged that now under a new scheme she is not entitled to appointment but only some monetary benefit. This argument also cannot be accepted because vide the earlier judgment dated 3.3.2005, which has become final, the claim has to be considered under the scheme dated 19.2.1997. 14. No other point has been urged. 15. 13. Lastly it is urged that now under a new scheme she is not entitled to appointment but only some monetary benefit. This argument also cannot be accepted because vide the earlier judgment dated 3.3.2005, which has become final, the claim has to be considered under the scheme dated 19.2.1997. 14. No other point has been urged. 15. Normally, the Court is very loathe to grant a mandate itself for appointment but as has been noted hereinabove, twice the Bank has raised the same bogey and misleading grounds to reject the claim of the widow. Since the Bank appears to have a closed mind on the issue and is harassing a young widow by forcing her to approach the Court time and again it would be against the interest of justice to remand the matter for decision afresh. Applying the ratio of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava v. University of Allahabd and others, 2002(3) ESC 320 (All), which has been affirmed by the Apex Court, remand would be futile. 16. For the reasons above this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.2005 is hereby quashed and the respondent bank is directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. Petitioner would be entitled to her costs. ———