ORDER Patil, J. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned communication dated 31.10.94 vide Annexure-B, in so far as it states that, keeping open the offer of appointment is subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions of the scheme prevailing on the said date; the communication dated 17.9.2005 vide Annexure-H and the communication dated 24.12.2005 vide Annexure-K all issued by the respondent/Bank has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondent/bank to appoint the petitioner in clerical cadre on compassionate grounds in accordance with the Scheme as notified by Codified Circular No.29/93 dated 27.3.93 vide Annexure-A. 2. The case of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the son of deceased Sri. Sanjeev Pathak, who was the employee of the respondent-Bank and who died while he was in service in the accident on 14th April 1994, leaving behind the petitioner as his only legal representative since his mother and sisters have died in the said accident. The respondent-bank has notified the Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds by Codified Circular bearing No.29/1993 dated 27.3.1993 vide Annexure-A. Clause-3 and 4 of the said Scheme deals with the cases of minors. The petitioner was a minor as on the date of the death of his father Sri. Sanjeev Pathak. The father of the petitioner along with petitioner’s mother and two sisters has died in the accident leaving behind the petitioner who was a minor at that time as sole surviving member of the family. It is the further case of the petitioner that, he has filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds before the respondent-Bank, on account of the death of his father as per the Scheme dated 27th March 1993 which is existence as on that date. In pursuance of the application filed by petitioner, the jurisdictional competent authority of the respondent-Bank after obtaining permission from the Board of Directors of the Bank has accorded the request of the petitioner on 31.10.1994 vide Annexure-B, wherein it is specifically stated that, the Bank has considered the request of the petitioner to keep open the offer of appointment of the petitioner - Kunal Pathak son of late Sanjeev Pathak, Clerk, Code No.11087, Jaipur Branch, on his attaining the age of majority i.e. on 27.8.2005 subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions of the scheme prevailing on the said date. When the petitioner has attained the age of majority, he has submitted his detailed representation to the respondent-Bank seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 24.8.2005 vide Annexure G. Instead of considering the request of the petitioner in the light of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank vide Annexure-B dated 31.10.1994, the competent authority of the respondent-bank has rejected the same, vide Annexure-H dated 17.9.2005 stating that there is no scheme for providing employment on compassionate grounds and therefore they are unable to consider his request. Further, it is stated therein that, a scheme has been introduced for Payment of Exgratia/Relief in lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee and enclosed the necessary forms. Thereafter, petitioner has made another request for appointment on compassionate grounds On 10.12.2005 vide Annexure-J. The same has also been rejected by the respondent-Bank vide communication dated 24.12.2005 Vide Annexure-K. Being aggrieved by the impugned communications Vide Annexures-H and K as referred above and seeking appropriate relief as stated supra, petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank. 4. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank and after careful perusal of the grounds urged by the petitioner in this writ petition and the stand taken by respondent-Bank in the statement of objections it is not in dispute that, in pursuance of the request made by petitioner being the only legal heir of the deceased-Sri. Sanjeev Pathak who was the employee of the respondent-Bank, for appointment on compassionate grounds, the same has been placed before the Board of Directors of the Bank, which in turn, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the unfortunate incident took place in the family of the petitioner, where the petitioner’s father mother and two sisters have died in the accident leaving behind minor petitioner as sole surviving member of the family, has rightly considered his request and taken a decision sympathetically with reference to Clause-3 and 4 of the then existing Scheme dated 27.3.1993 vide Annexure A and issued the communication to the petitioner vide Annexure-B dated 31.10.1994, which reads as under: “We are pleased to inform you that the Bank has considered your request to keep open the offer of appointment of Master Kunal Pathak s/o Late Sanjeev Pathak, Clerk, Code No.11087, Jaipur branch on his attaining the age of majority i.e. on 27.8.2005 subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions of the scheme prevailing on the said date”. Further, it is significant to note at the condition referred in the said communication that, “subject to fu filling the terms and conditions of the scheme prevailing on the said date is contrary to Clause-3 and 4 of the then existing Scheme vide Annexure-A dated 27.3.1993, which is relevant for considering the request of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted his representation after attaining the age of majority. The respondent-Bank instead of extending the assurance offered vide Annexure-B, has turned down the request of the petitioner vide Annexure-H dated 17.9.2005 stating that, there is no Scheme for providing employment on compassionate grounds in their bank and therefore, they are unable to consider his request. Further, it is stated that, a Scheme has been introduced for payment of exgratia/Relief in lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee and enclosed the necessary forms. Further, it is stated that, a Scheme has been introduced for payment of exgratia/Relief in lieu of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee and enclosed the necessary forms. It is pertinent to note here itself that, respondent-Bank, intentionally and deliberately has not referred about the assurance given to the petitioner vide Annexure-B in Annexures-H or K. The manner in which the respondent-Bank headed by officers of high calibre has considered the request of the petitioner and proceeded to issue the impugned communications is not justifiable, for the reason that, respondent-Bank has issued the impugned communications vide Annexures-H and K without thorough verification of the relevant materials available on file and without proper application of mind as to under what circumstances the communication dated 31.10.1994 vide Annexure-B is issued stating that, the request of the petitioner to keep open the offer of appointment on his attaining the age of majority i.e. on 27.8.2005 has been considered and now turning back and giving a clear go bye to the same, at the time of considering the request of the petitioner filed by him after attaining majority, is not at all appreciable. Therefore, I am of the considered view that any stretch of imagination, the impugned communi-cations issued by respondent-Bank vide Annexures-H and K are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed in part. The impugned communication dated 17.9.2005 bearing Ref. No. PER: HRD: RCT :6644:2005 vide Annexure-H and the communication dated 24.12.2005 bearing Ref. No. PER:HRD:RCT:8383 :2005 vide Annexure-K both issued by the respondent/Bank are hereby set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the respondent-Bank for reconsideration, with a direction to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the Scheme which is in existence as on the date of the death of the petitioner’s father Sri. Sanjeev Pathak, i.e. Clause. No. PER:HRD:RCT:8383 :2005 vide Annexure-K both issued by the respondent/Bank are hereby set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the respondent-Bank for reconsideration, with a direction to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the Scheme which is in existence as on the date of the death of the petitioner’s father Sri. Sanjeev Pathak, i.e. Clause. 3 and 4 of the Codified Circular No.29/1993 dated 27.3.1993 of the said Scheme and also in the light of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank as communicated by the respondent-Bank vide Annexure- B dated 31.10.1994 bearing reference No. PER:RCT:4311:94 and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of Three Months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Further it is needless to clarify that the last two lines of the communication dated 31.10.1994 vide Annexure-B i.e. subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions of the scheme prevailing on the said date” cannot be applicable nor it is permissible to the respondent-Bank to put such a condition contrary to the Scheme which is in existence as on the date of the death of the father of the petitioner and they must take a decision independently, in compliance of the above directions issued by this Court. With these observations, the writ peti-tion filed by petitioner stands disposed of.