JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.5.1999 passed by the respondent Bank rejecting the application of the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. A further relief of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a Class IV post and pay consequential benefits along with arrears has also been claimed. 3. Undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner, who was a Class IV employee working as a security guard with the respondent Bank died-in-harness on 8.6.1998 leaving behind his wife and four daughters including the petitioner. An application was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate ground. All other legal heirs are stated to have given their no objection on affidavit for appointment of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 7.5.1999, respondent No. 2, the Branch Manager informed the petitioner that the competent authority has rejected the application of the petitioner. The order passed by the competent authority has been brought on record by the respondent Bank in its counter affidavit as Annexure CA 1. A perusal of the order goes to show that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that since a sum of Rs. 3.12 lacs has been paid as terminal benefits towards provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment etc. and a sum of Rs. 2,875/- was liable to be paid as family pension and the three elder daughters being married and the size of the family being very small, the circumstances do not warrant compassionate appointment, inasmuch as there was sufficient funds available with the family of the deceased to maintain themselves. 4. The Bank has framed a scheme for appointment of the dependants of the deceased employees known as Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds for dependants of deceased employees/employees retired on medical grounds, which came into effect from 1st of January, 1979 and has been modified from time to time. 4. The Bank has framed a scheme for appointment of the dependants of the deceased employees known as Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds for dependants of deceased employees/employees retired on medical grounds, which came into effect from 1st of January, 1979 and has been modified from time to time. The scheme updated on 1.1.1998, prevailing at the time when compassionate appointment was claimed by the petitioner, contains a stipulation that the compassionate appointment was to be offered only when the Bank was satisfied that the financial condition of the family was such, that but for the provisions of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis and in making assessment of the financial condition of the family, the following factors are prescribed to be taken into consideration: (i) Family Pension (ii) Gratuity amount received (iii) Employee’s Employer’s contribution to Provident Fund (iv) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund (v) Proceeds of LIC policies and other investments of the deceased employee (vi) Income for family from other sources (vii) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise (viii) Size of the family and liabilities, if any. 5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of family pension and other terminal benefits received by the family after death of the employee cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as in every case the terminal benefits are received by the family and in most of the cases, widow is entitled to family pension, and as such, no appointment on compassionate ground can ever be made and the scheme of the Bank will have no meaning. 6. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Ram Piyarey Adult, 2001(2) ESC 876 (All). 7. In reply, it has been submitted that under the provisions of the scheme, compassionate appointment can be made only in cases where the deceased has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood and the scheme also provides factor to be taken into consideration while making an assessment of the financial condition of the family. 7. In reply, it has been submitted that under the provisions of the scheme, compassionate appointment can be made only in cases where the deceased has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood and the scheme also provides factor to be taken into consideration while making an assessment of the financial condition of the family. It has further been urged that after taking into consideration all the factors provided for making an assessment of the financial condition of the family of the petitioner, it was found that since a huge sum has been received towards terminal benefits and widow would also be entitled to family pension and the size of the family being very small, inasmuch as the other three daughters are married, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment. It has further been submitted that order has been passed in accordance with the parameters laid down in the scheme and, thus, is not liable to be interfered with. 8. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It cannot be disputed or doubted that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor the public office is heritable. Equally well settled is the proposition that the Court cannot order appointment on compassionate ground, de hors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions and the hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to compassionate appointment de hors the statutory provisions, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another, JT 1994 (2) SC 183. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh, JT 2007 (3) SC 398, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of the contention that it is not open to the High Court to interfere in such matters, has observed in paragraph 13 as under : “In our considered opinion the High Court itself could not have undertaken any exercise to decide as to what would be the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival and whether it had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The only question the High Court could have adverted itself is whether the decision making process rejecting the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment is vitiated? Whether the order is not in conformity with the scheme framed by the appellant-Bank? It is not even urged that the order passed by the Competent Authority is not in accordance with the scheme. It is well settled that the hardship of the dependant does not entitle one to compassionate appointment de hors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be. The income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into consideration according to scheme which the High Court altogether ignored while remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the appellant-Bank. It is not a case where the dependants of the deceased employee are left ‘without any means of livelihood’ and unable to make both ends meet. The High Court ought not to have disturbed the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant-Bank that the respondent was not living hand to mouth. As observed by this Court in General Manager (D & PB) and others v. Kunti Tiwary and another, the High Court cannot dilute the criteria of ‘penury’ to one of “not very well-to-do”. The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court may amount to varying the existing scheme framed by the appellant-Bank. Such a course is impermissible in law.” 11. In the case of Union of India and others v. M.T. Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “Specially constituted authorities in the Rules or Regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived at the appreciation on full facts should not be disturbed.” 12. Reference may also be made to another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, JT 2007 (3) SC 35, wherein while considering an almost identical situation like the one in case in hand, it has been held that the competent authority of the Bank had to consider the case of the respondents as per the parameters laid down in the scheme and specially constituted authorities in the Rules and Regulations are better equipped to decide the case on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. 13. Reliance placed upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Piyarey Adult (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misdirected as the said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. The Division Bench while upholding that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if satisfied that but for the provisions of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, but on the facts of the said case, since it was found that income of the petitioner was not sufficient to maintain, as such, the order refusing the appointment on compassionate ground was held to be unjustified and the employer was directed to reconsider the case and to take appropriate decision considering the financial stringency and hardship. 14. The case being clearly distinguishable on facts has no application whatsoever. 15. In view of the fact that the family of the deceased has been paid a sum of Rs. 3.12 lacs towards terminal benefit and the widow is entitled to family pension amounting to Rs. 2,875/- per month and the family has immovable assets valued at Rs. 1.25 lacs and three elder daughters being married, there being only two members in the family, the financial condition of the family by no stretch of imagination can be said to be penury nor that of destitution. 16. 2,875/- per month and the family has immovable assets valued at Rs. 1.25 lacs and three elder daughters being married, there being only two members in the family, the financial condition of the family by no stretch of imagination can be said to be penury nor that of destitution. 16. The findings recorded by the competent authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment are in accordance with the parameters laid down by the scheme framed by the Bank, inasmuch as all the factors required to be considered while arriving at a conclusion with respect to the financial condition of the family have been taken into account nor any such thing could be pointed out on behalf of the petitioner which may go to show that the findings recorded by the competent authority are factually incorrect. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ————