JUDGMENT By the Court.—Respondents-appellants, aggrieved by an order dated 14.5.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32127 of 2007, have preferred this Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the husband of writ petitioner-respondent No.1 was an employee of Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank. Her husband died on 25.9.2004 and she filed application for appointment on compassionate ground on 26.10.2004. Her case for appointment was considered in terms of the policy dated 6.12.2006 and accordingly by order dated 12.4.2007, the Regional Manager, Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank rejected her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Writ-petitioner Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order inter alia contending that her case for appointment on compassionate ground was not fit to be considered in accordance with the new scheme which had come into force on 6.12.2006, but in accordance with the scheme which existed at the time of filing of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It was also averred that the dependants of deceased employees who filed applications latter than writ petitioner-respondent No.1, were considered and granted compassionate appointment and that the case of respondent No.1 was not considered purposely for a pretty long time and it was dealt with nearly more than 2 years after the filing of the application in the light of the scheme dated 6.12.2006, to defeat her claim. 4. Both the submissions found favour with the Iearned Single Judge and the appellants have been directed to offer compassionate appointment to writ petitioner-respondent No.1 and so long as it is not done, not to make fresh appointments on ministerial posts. While doing so, the learned Single Judge observed as follows : “In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment ought to have been processed and dealt with in accordance with the old scheme which was prevalent before 6.12.2006. The petitioner has been discriminated purposefully while the other similarly circumstanced persons have been given compassionate appointment." 5. The petitioner has been discriminated purposefully while the other similarly circumstanced persons have been given compassionate appointment." 5. The learned Single Judge has further observed as follows : “It is noteworthy that she had submitted her application seeking compassionate appointment on 26.10.2004 after the death of her husband on 25.9.2004 and as such it was incumbent upon the authorities of the respondent-Bank to deal with the matter expeditiously. It was imperative upon the authorities to handle such matters without any delay. No lethargy or inaction is permissible in such cases where a bereaved family is seeking some means to sustain as the family is under perennial situation. Even according to the policies of the Government of India and the State Government, such applications have to be processed expeditiously." 6. Mr. R.B. Sahai assisted by Sri Amrish Sahai, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the case of writ petitioner-respondent No.1 is re uired to be considered in accordance with the old scheme, which was prevalent before 6.12.2006. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6820 of 2006 (Vishal Mishra v. President/Managing Director, Bank of Baroda and another), disposed of, on 15.12.2008 and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment, which reads as follows : “The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the amended scheme will have no application to the case of the petitioner as the death of his father took place on 10th December, 2003 prior to 10th March, 2004 when the scheme was amended. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the first instance, the communication dated 10th March, 2004 itself indicates that all pending requests for compassionate appointments had to be dealt with under the provisions of the amended scheme. Secondly, even otherwise the claim for compassionate appointment can be considered only in accordance with the scheme which is applicable when the decisions is to be taken and not when the death occurred. Secondly, even otherwise the claim for compassionate appointment can be considered only in accordance with the scheme which is applicable when the decisions is to be taken and not when the death occurred. It needs to be mentioned that the Supreme Court in Howrah Municipal Corporation and others v. Ganges Rope Company Ltd. and others, (2004) 1 SCC 663 , placing reliance upon its earlier judgments in Usman Gani J. Khatri of Bombay v. Cantonment Board and others, (1992) 3 SCC 455 and State of West Bengal v. Terra Firma Investment &Trading Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 125 , held that a pending application is to be decided on the basis of law existing on the date of decision and not on the basis of the law prevailing on the date of submission of the application. In the present case, even the application was submitted after the scheme had been amended. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 36007 of 2003 (Smt. Subhead Devi and another v. Union of India and others) decided on 23rd February, 2006 has also made similar observations." 7. Mr. Shailendra, however appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner­respondent No. 1 submits that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, JT 2007 (3) SC 35, the scheme which was prevalent at the time of the submission of the application, shall govern the field and not the scheme which was formulated later on. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on paragraph 30 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as follows : “Finally in the fact situation of this case, Sri Sukhbir lnder Singh (late), Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts) on 1.8.1999 in the Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar branch passed away. The respondent, widow of Sri Sukhbir Inder Singh applied for compassionate appointment in the appellant Bank on 5.2.2000 under the scheme which was formulated in 2005. The High Court also erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 4.8.2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. The High Court also erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 4.8.2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of deceased is Rs. 5855/- only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by Late Shri. Sukhbir lnder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water." 8. We are not inclined to give our concluded opinion on the aforesaid submission, as we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Judge did not err in directing for consideration of the case of respondent No. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 filed application for appointment on compassionate ground on 26.10.2004 and said application was kept pending and was considered only after the new scheme came into force on 6.12.2006. It is not the case of the appellants that applications of all other candidates for appointment on compassionate ground were kept pending. It is on record and has not been disputed that the dependants of the employees who died on 16.10.2005, 30.4.2004, 12.7.2004, 16.3.2005, 22.9.2004 and July 2002 were given appointment on compassionate ground on 16.12.2005, 4.1.2005, 1.8.2005, 6.9.2005, 13.10.2005 and 1.2.2006 respectively. 9. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the cases of the dependants of some of the employees were considered from the period ranging from two months to one year in all the cases excepting one, whereas the case of respondent No. 1 was kept pending for more than two years and thereafter on coming into force of the new scheme on 16.12.2006, it has been rejected. The cases of the dependants of other employees were considered within a reasonable time from the date of filing of the application and nothing prevented the Bank from considering the appointment of the respondent No. 1 on compassionate ground within a reasonable time. An employer taking more than two years to take decision on the prayer of the dependant of an employee to seek appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be reasonable. An employer taking more than two years to take decision on the prayer of the dependant of an employee to seek appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be reasonable. Had her application considered within a reasonable time, the scheme which came into force on 6.12.2006 would not have come in her way. The Bank on account of its inaction and delay in disposal of the claim of respondent No.1 cannot bring about any such situation so as to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment. 10. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that in the fact and situation of the present case the learned Single Judge did not err in directing the appellants to offer her appointment on compassionate ground. 11. However, we are of the view that while giving the aforesaid direction, the learned Single Judge ought not to have restrained the appellants from making fresh appointments on ministerial posts till her appointment. 12. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed and the direction of learned Single Judge restraining the appellants-bank from making any appointment on ministerial post till the appointment of respondent No. 1 is set aside. However, the direction to offer the appointment to writ petitioner-respondent No.1 on compassionate ground is maintained. However, this order will not mean that appellants will take inordinate time in offering compassionate appointment to respondent No.1. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. ————