ORDER One Sri P. Satyanarayana, husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner, was employed as an Attender in State Bank of Hyderabad, the first respondent herein, in the year 1978. He died in an accident on 4.5.2005, while in service. The first petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent requesting that the benefit of compassionate appointment be extended to them. It was urged that on account of the death of Satya narayana, the family is without any earning member and is facing distress. 2. The second respondent addressed a communication, dated 8.12.2005, to the petitioners stating that the petitioners cannot be said to be in distress, in view of the income of the first petitioner and the assets held by the family. The same is assailed in this writ petition. 3. Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has taken into account the family pension and other benefits extended to the petitioners on account of the death of the deceased employee, and that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He contends that the death-cum-retirement benefits are transferable to the contribution of the employee himself and the same cannot be a factor for denying the benefit of compassionate appointment. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2005 SCC (L&S) 590. 4. Sri A. Krishnam Raju, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that having regard to the income being derived by the petitioners, it cannot be said that their family is in distress and that the petitioners cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Umeshkumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 and State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, 2007 (3) ALD 60 (SC) = (2007) 4 SCC 778 . 5. It is not in dispute that Satyanarayana, who was employed as an Attender with the first respondent bank, died while in service. The respondents framed a scheme for providing employment to the dependants of - the deceased employee on compassionate grounds, in case the death occurred while the employee was in service. 5. It is not in dispute that Satyanarayana, who was employed as an Attender with the first respondent bank, died while in service. The respondents framed a scheme for providing employment to the dependants of - the deceased employee on compassionate grounds, in case the death occurred while the employee was in service. Notwithstanding the shift of emphasis on the parameters to be taken into account for providing employment on compassionate grounds, the basis has always been, the necessity to enable the family, to tide over the distress caused by his sudden demise. In other words, if the family is forced to face penury on account of the death of the employee, providing employment to one of the dependants, on out of turn basis, would enable the family to tide over the difficult situation. It was also recognized that appointment on compassionate ground cannot 2008(4) FR-F-9 17; be claimed as of right. It is only when the necessary circumstances exist, that the employer can exercise the discretion to provide such employment. 6. In the instant case, the application made by the petitioners was entertained by the second respondent and verification of the relevant factors was undertaken. The fact that an amount of Rs.3,947/- was being paid as family pension, on account of the death of the employee, was noticed. It was also mentioned that on a rough estimation, about Rs.2,500/- would be derived as interest on the liquidated assets i.e., about a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- paid by the respondents to the petitioners as deathcum-retirement benefits. On the basis of these facts, the second respondent opined that the petitioners cannot be said to be in distress. He derived support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpa/'s case (supra). 7. It is, no doubt, true that in Govind Praksh Verma's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that the receipt of amounts admissible under relevant rules on the death of employee cannot be treated as the basis to deny the employment to a dependent, on compassionate grounds. However, in the subsequent judgment in State Bank of India's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that if the scheme itself provides for taking the various benefits extended to the employee into account, while assessing the financial conditions of the family, they cannot be ignored. However, in the subsequent judgment in State Bank of India's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that if the scheme itself provides for taking the various benefits extended to the employee into account, while assessing the financial conditions of the family, they cannot be ignored. Incidentally, the Rules framed by the first respondent are almost similar to those framed by the appellant therein i.e., State Bank of India. It is apt to refer the observations of the Supreme Court in that case, which read as under: 'There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de liars the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc., framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. The scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased employee on compassionate grounds framed by the appellant bank inter alia provides that in making assessment of the financial condition of the family which is an important criterion for determining the eligibility to compassionate appointment, the following factors are required to be taken into consideration: (a) Family pension; (b) Gratuity amount received; (c) Employee's/employer's 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 for family from other sources; (g) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise; (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any." 8. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the second respondent in assessing the financial condition of the family of the petitioners, and taking the family pension and other benefits extended by them into account cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. The petitioners do not dispute the facts and figures mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the second respondent in assessing the financial condition of the family of the petitioners, and taking the family pension and other benefits extended by them into account cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. The petitioners do not dispute the facts and figures mentioned in the impugned order. This Court is of the view that the impugned order totally accords with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in I State Bank of India's case (supra). 9. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.