Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank. 2. The petitioner seeks the relief of compassionate appointment. Her husband was deceased on 1.4.2003. Her application came to be rejected by an order dated 24.3.2004 that having regard to the terminal dues received by the family and that the family was residing in its own accommodation, the liability upon the employee at the time of his death, the financial condition of the family was not found to be indigent. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that in accordance with the scheme of the Bank, an application for compassionate appointment is considered keeping in view the following: (i) Family Pension. (ii) Gratuity amount received. (iii) Employee and Employers contribution of Provident Fund. (iv) Any compensation paid by the Bank on its Welfare fund. (v) Proceeds of L.I.C. Policy and other investment of the deceased employee. (vi) Income of the family for other employee. (vi) Income of the family from other source. (vii) Employment of other family members (viii) Size of the family and other liabilities, if any, etc. 4. In accordance with the said scheme, the Bank had considered the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and found that his family had received the following terminal dues from the Bank: Provident fund : Rs. 5,53,886.64 Gratuity : Rs. 2,97,340.00 Ex gratia : Rs. 45,000.00 H/L Waivement : Rs. 17,660.00 --------------- Total Rs. 9,13,886.64 5. There is also a L.I.C. policy of Rs. one lac as per the assets and liability submitted by the deceased officer. 6. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a normal source of recruitment or appointment. It is made in pressing circumstances where the family of the deceased is left with no source of livelihood at all faced with the sudden loss of the bread winner. In other words, the family has been rendered destitute and indigent. It is only in such compelling circumstances, the Courts have permitted an inroad into Article 14 of the Constitution by accepting the plea of compassionate appointment. While considering such exceptions to Article 14, the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (D & PB) and Ors. V/s. Kunti Tiwari and Anr. It is only in such compelling circumstances, the Courts have permitted an inroad into Article 14 of the Constitution by accepting the plea of compassionate appointment. While considering such exceptions to Article 14, the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (D & PB) and Ors. V/s. Kunti Tiwari and Anr. reported in - held that the recommendations of the Indian Banks Association finally formulated on 1.1.1998 determined the criteria for deciding the financial condition of the family as follows: (a) Family pension. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employees/employers contribution to provident fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee. (f) Income of family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc. 7. On basis of the aforesaid, the Court held that it could not be said that the family of the deceased had been left in "penury" or "without any means of livelihood". In view of the benefits received by them it cannot be said that they were living hand to mouth. The fact that the family of the deceased was "not very well-to-do" was not relevant. This view has been reiterated in Punjab National Bank and Ors. V/s. Aswini Kumar Taneja - to hold that the object of compassionate appointment has to be examined with reference to the amount received by the heirs of the deceased employe to determine the financial hardship. The Court again relied upon the recommendations of the Indian Banks Association as noticed in the previous case to hold that the retiral benefits and other source of income are also to be take into consideration while dealing with the prayer for compassionate appointment. 8. The Respondent-Bank has passed a reasoned order. It shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to enter into the correctness of the order to reassess the objective findings of the Bank especially when the petitioner has chosen not to controvert the same. 9. The writ application is dismissed.