ORDER N. K. Patil, J. 1. Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the impugned communication dated 19th March 2005 bearing No. BELG/2004-05 vide Annexure E issued by fourth respondent (stated as ‘first respondent’ in writ petition), has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to consider and to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the respo ndent - Central Bank of India forthwith. 2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner’s father, late Sri. Laxman Patil was working as full time ‘Safai karmachari’ at Belgaum Branch of the first respondent - Central Bank of India (herein after called “Bank”). While the petitioner’s father was in service, he died on 4th April 2004 leaving behind the petitioner, wife and three daughters and widow mother. In the light of the scheme of the respondent - Bank for appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds, petitioner’s mother has filed the application/representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to her son, through proper channel on 2nd September 2004. After perusal of the application filed by petitioner’s mother, the Zonal Manager of the Regional Office, Hubli, Belgaum branch, has forwarded the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, taking into consideration the total number of family members and the liability and specifically stated that, as per the ingredients of the scheme for appointment of dependents of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is very poor, by his recommendation dated 9th November 2004 vide Annexure D to the Deputy General Manager (PRS), Central Office, Mumbai. Without considering the said recommendation forwarded by the Zonal Manager of the Regional Office, Hubli, Belgaum Branch for appointment of petitioner on compassionate appointment, the request of petitioner has been rejected by the Central Office, stating that, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is not that of indigence in nature and therefore, as per the Government/IBA guidelines, employment cannot be provided to the dependant of the deceased employee of the Bank by the impugned communication issued by the Senior Manager, Central Bank of India on 19th March 2005 vide Annexure E. Being aggrieved by the impugned communication vide Annexure E, as referred above, and seeking appropriate reliefs, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 3. 3. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel for petitioner is that, the impugned communication issued by fourth respondent cannot be sustained for the reason that, no valid and cogent reasons as such are assigned by the said authority for rejecting the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Secondly, he contended that, the Zonal Manager of the Regional Office, Hubli, Belgaum Branch has forwarded the recommendation for appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds and that, the said recommendation is neither considered nor referred in the communication. Further, he submitted that, the Zonal Manager of Belgaum Branch, after thorough evaluation of the pensionary benefits of the deceased father of the petitioner and his liabilities, has specifically observed and recorded the finding that, the financial condition of the family of petitioner is very poor and that, petitioner is the only male member in the family of the deceased and since he has passed SSLC in March 2001, the said authority has recommended the case of petitioner for a post in clerical cadre in the Bank favourably. The said aspect of the matter has not at all been looked into nor considered nor any decision is taken as per the existing scheme governing the appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned communication issued by fourth respondent cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents - Bank, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned communication issued by fourth respondent is in strict compliance of the guidelines of the Scheme and further submitted that, the Bank has specifically taken into consideration the fact that, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is not that of indigence in nature, when they are getting the monthly pension of Rs. 5,000/- and odd and their financial position is far better. Further, he submitted that, petitioner cannot claim the compassionate appointment as a matter of right. To substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court reported in All India Reports and Law Journals, viz. I] LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (Mrs.) and Anr. reported in AIR 1994 SC 2148 ; II] Umesh Kumar Nagapal v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 319 ; III] General Manager (D & PB) and Ors. I] LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (Mrs.) and Anr. reported in AIR 1994 SC 2148 ; II] Umesh Kumar Nagapal v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 319 ; III] General Manager (D & PB) and Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary and Anr. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 2001; IV] Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja 2004 -III reported in LLJ -536 (SC); V] Union Bank of India and Ors. v. M.T. Latheesh 2006 - III reported in LLJ -791; VI] State Bank of India and Anr. v. Somvir Singh 2007 II reported in LLJ -230; and VII] State Bank of India and Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur 2007 - II reported in LLJ 385 and submitted that, if the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments is taken into consideration, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in penury and that, they are unable to make both ends meet. Therefore, he submitted that, the action of respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is strictly in accordance with the guidelines and on the premise that, the financial condition of the family of petitioner is not that of indigence in nature. Therefore, the impugned communication issued by fourth respondent does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, he submitted that, petitioner has not made out any good grounds as such to interfere in the well considered decision taken by first respondent and also in the impugned communication issued by fourth respondent in as much as the said decision is strictly as per the guidelines/Scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds. 5. After hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for respondents - Bank, after taking into consideration the submission made by learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the impugned communication dated 19th March 2005 issued by fourth respondent, it is manifest on the face of the contents of the said communication that, the fourth respondent and the competent authority of first respondent - Bank have committed a grave error and material irregularity in coming to the impugned conclusion. It is significant to note that, pursuant to the application filed by the mother of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds for her son, as provided under the Scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds, the Zonal Manager of the Regional Office, Hubli, Belgaum branch, after conducting enquiry, making research and analyzing the details available threadbare and after careful perusal of the ingredients of appointment on compassionate grounds, as provided under the relevant Scheme, has extracted the details of terminal benefits paid to the dependents of the deceased employee of the respondent - Bank and also specifically referred the liabilities in the said recommendation. Further, the said respondent, taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources, the size of the family and the liability of the family, has stated that, the wife of the deceased Laxman Patil is illiterate and being a house wife, her presence is required at home to look after her minor daughter and aged mother-in-law and two other married daughters of the deceased have given no objection to the Bank for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds by the Bank and that, the deceased employee has not availed any housing loan and that, major portion of the terminal benefits have been adjusted towards appropriation of loans availed by the deceased employee and hence, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is very poor. Taking into consideration all these factors, by going into the ground reality of the matter, looking at the pathetic condition of the family of petitioner through which it is sailing, the difficulty of the family of the petitioner in facing the day to day life and to seek their livelihood, the Zonal Manager of the Regional Officer, has, by taking a pragmatic approach, recommended the case of petitioner to the Central Office to consider his case for a post in clerical cadre in the Bank favorably and also submitted the names of Branches, viz. Shirwar, Raichur and Dandeli along with the respective staff strength and business figures. Shirwar, Raichur and Dandeli along with the respective staff strength and business figures. The said recommendation submitted by the Zonal Manager of the Regional Office has not at all been looked into nor considered by the Central Office except referring that, “From the information submitted, it is observed that the financial condition of the family is not that of indigence in nature, therefore, as per Government/IBA guidelines, employment cannot be provided to the dependent of the deceased employee.” From the said reason assigned by the Central Officer, it can be analyzed that, the said authority has not studied the ground reality of the destitute condition of petitioner as to the financial insecurity of the family of the petitioner. When the competent authority of the Central Office has come to the conclusion that, the family of petitioner is not is financial distress, the said authority ought to have assigned valid reasons for such conclusion as to, on what basis/material he has come to such a conclusion. Therefore, the said reasoning given by the Central Office cannot be sustained. Further, whenever a competent authority rejects the claim made by aggrieved persons, the said authority is bound to exercise its power as envisaged under the terms and conditions of the Scheme governing the same and in consonance with the idea/object behind introduction of such Scheme. The said Scheme is a social welfare scheme introduced by the competent authority for specific purpose and the object and aim of it being to relieve the family of the deceased person from financial distress and also to come out of the sudden financial constraints. Further, in the instant case, it can be seen that, the deceased employee was serving in the lowest post of ‘Safai Karmachari’ and had no other source of income and is a fit case for sympathetic consideration by the competent authority. After taking into consideration all these aspects including the ingredients of the Scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds, the Zonal Manager of the Regional Office has sent a proposal by way of recommendation for appointment of the petitioner to any clerical post. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is not that of indigence in nature, cannot be sustained. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner is not that of indigence in nature, cannot be sustained. The said specific reasoning cannot be accepted in view of reasons assigned by the Zonal Manager in the recommendation as referred above. Further, it is pertinent to note that, the Central Office has not looked into nor considered the size of the family, i.e. the number of dependents of the deceased, wherein he has left behind the wife who is illiterate and uneducated, ailing mother who is none other than the grandmother of the petitioner and an unmarried daughter, who were all dependent on the source of income of the deceased Laxman Patil, the father of petitioner. Further, it is not the case of respondent - Bank also that, the deceased employee has owned other property and has got income from other sources. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the Central Office ought to have taken a sympathetic, compassionate and pragmatic approach instead of coming to the present conclusion. Further, in the instant case of peculiar nature, wherein the deceased was working in the lowest rung in the Bank, not having any income from other sources except the income from deceased employee, dependents being the minor daughter, illiterate wife, aged and ailing mother, it is normally expected of the competent authority of the Bank to have had a practical approach and taken a sympathetic view of the matter. Ther efore, having regard to the facts and circum- stances of the case, as stated above, by any stretch of imagination, the impugned communication issued by fourth respon- dent vide Annexure E cannot be sustain- ed. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 6. So far as the reliance placed by learned Counsel appearing for respondents - Bank, as referred above, is concerned, there is no second opinion, dispute or quarrel with regard to the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgments. But the facts and circumstances of those cases are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. But the facts and circumstances of those cases are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgments is not at all applicable to the present case nor the same can be made applicable to the instant case. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of as follows: I) The writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed in part; II) The impugned communication issued by fourth respondent dated 19th March 2005 bearing No. BELG/2004-05 vide Annexure E, is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to first respondent - Bank to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in strict compliance of the Scheme introduced for appointment of dependents of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds and also in the light of the recommendation forwarded by the Zonal Manager of the Regional Office, Hubli Belgaum branch dated 9th November 2004 vide Annexure D and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of.