JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel appears for the respondents. 2. Late Ram Adhar, husband of Smt Ram Rati - petitioner No. 1 and father of Ashok Kumar - petitioner No. 2 was working in North-Eastern Railway. He died some time in the year 1983-84, on which Smt. Ram Rati - petitioner No. 1 applied for compassionate appointment. She was appointed as Medical Attendant in the Divisional Railway Hospital under the Chief Medical Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly. 3. After serving for 16 years, the petitioner No. 1 was declared medically unfit for all categories in the Railways due to hundred per cent loss of her vision, and consequently vide office order dated 24.8.2000, she was discharged from Railway Services with effect from 14.7.2000. At the time of her medical disablement, she had about four years left to serve before superannuation. Her son Ashok Kumar, petitioner No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment, claiming a right to be appointed on the disablement of her mother in terms of the Master Circular dated 12.12.1990 on Appointment on Compassionate Grounds issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of petitioner No. 1 stating that her son was her only support, especially as she had lost her eye-sight, however, he was unemployed and the family had to incur heavy medical expenses for her treatment before she was discharged from Railway Service. She submitted two more representations dated 10.8.2001 and 13.8.2001. Her request was rejected vide letter dated 5.10.2001 on the ground that the financial conditions did not represent that she was indigent. 4. The petitioners filed Original Application No. 157 of 2002. The Central Administrative Bench, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad allowed the Original Application vide judgment dated 9.11.2004 and while setting aside the order dated 5.10.2001, directed the respondents to reconsider the case of compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 2. The Tribunal found that, while considering the case of appointment on compassionate grounds, the authorities cannot take into consideration, the retirement/termination benefits given to the family of the deceased. The monthly pension of petitioner No. 1 should also not to be taken into consideration while considering the financial status of the applicants. The Tribunal found that, while considering the case of appointment on compassionate grounds, the authorities cannot take into consideration, the retirement/termination benefits given to the family of the deceased. The monthly pension of petitioner No. 1 should also not to be taken into consideration while considering the financial status of the applicants. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the possession of one bigha and five biswas agricultural land is too small to yield sufficient produce to sustain the family. The third ground that she had major son, who is dependent on petitioner No. 1, and the services at her credit was only two years and 9 months before retirement, also could not be the ground to reject her application. 5. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) vide order dated 19.7.2005 again rejected the application. 6. In the Tribunal’s judgment dated 9.11.2004/13.1.2005 an observation has been made about seven cases for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of medically unfit persons. Out of these, in two cases there was only 28 days left in the employment. The facts and circumstances in which compassionate appointment was given in those cases were not presented before the Tribunal. In the absence of the relevant information, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered favorably only on the ground that the dependents of seven medially unfit persons were given compassionate appointment. 7. Sri Ashok Kumar son of the applicant Ram Rati was 26 years and 4 months old when his mother was invalidated. He has completed his studies in the year 1989 and has his own children. He was not dependent of his mother to be considered for compassionate appointment. 8. The petitioners filed Original Application No. 1050 of 2005 for quashing the order dated 19.7.2005. The Tribunal by order dated 13.7.2008 dismissed the application giving rise to this writ petition. 9. In the order under challenge the Tribunal has found that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others [1994(2) SLR 677 SC), the Government has to examine the financial condition of the family while considering the request for compassionate appointment. Apart from the terminal benefits received by the applicants, the applicant No. 2 was already married with three children, and was employed in a private firm/shop. His case was thus not found fit enough for grant of compassionate appointment. Apart from the terminal benefits received by the applicants, the applicant No. 2 was already married with three children, and was employed in a private firm/shop. His case was thus not found fit enough for grant of compassionate appointment. The financial condition of the family could not be ignored by the respondents. In respect of seven cases, in which compassionate appointment was given, the Tribunal relied upon para 10 (iii) (a) of Master Circular 16 dated 12.12.1990 and found that the applicant No. 2 was not eligible for compassionate appointment as per Railways Pass and Pension Rules, which stipulates that a son, who is a major and married, cannot be termed as dependent. 10. Sri Satish Mandhyan, counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of rejection by the respondents as well as by the Tribunal in its subsequent judgment are the same with which the Tribunal in its earlier judgment dated 9.11.2004 did not agree. The Railway Authorities have apparently reiterated the same grounds in rejecting the application by order dated 19.7.2005. The petitioner No. 1 was declared unfit with loss of hundred percent vision, and was medically de-categorized for any job. Her financial condition was fully explained. In the order dated 19.7.2005, it is mentioned that petitioner No. 1 is receiving monthly pension of Rs.1725 + D.A. and exgratia payment of R.805/- per month, and had one bigha and five biswas of agricultural land. Her son was privately engaged, and was entirely dependent on petitioner No. 1. The financial condition of the family deteriorated because of continuing medical expenses, coupled with the fact that one of the daughter was married during the period. He submits that petitioner No. 2 has a right under the Master Circular No. 16 to be appointed on compassionate ground. The length of service was not relevant criteria for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. 11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 468 in para 9 the Supreme Court held : “We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 12. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ram Chandra Ambekar and others, (1994) 2 SCC 718 , the Supreme Court held in paras 10, 11, 15 and 16 as follows : “10. Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. No doubt Shakespeare said in Merchant of Venice : “The quality of mercy is not strain’d; It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath it is twice bless’d; it blessth him that gives, and him that takes;.” These words will not apply to all situations. Yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered “law is the embodiment of all wisdom”. Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The Courts are to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 11. At this juncture we may usefully refer to Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529 . At page 535 of the Report the following observations are found : “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not.” The Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, it should never be done. In the very case itself, there are Regulations and Instructions which we have extracted above. The Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of these statutory provisions. Disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, it should never be done. In the very case itself, there are Regulations and Instructions which we have extracted above. The Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope of these statutory provisions. Clause 2 of sub-clause (iii) of Instructions makes it clear that relaxation could be given only when none of the members of the family is gainfully employed. Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20-1-1987 interdicts such an appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered. 15. To say, as a Court below has done that the 2nd respondent is at the prime of his life and youth and is aged about 21 years and the dues that are paid by the Life Insurance Corporation to the family are the lawful dues that are earned by the deceased. Therefore, on facts, he would be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds is not the correct approach. 16. We are totally unable, to support this line of reasoning. For aught one knows, there may be other cases waiting already for appointment on compassionate grounds, they may be even harder than that of the 2nd respondent.” 13. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) the Supreme Court held in paras 2 and 6 as follows : “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision 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. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision 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. The posts in Class-III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 14. In the last decade most of the departments and the banks have framed their respective schemes for consideration of compassionate appointment. In the last decade most of the departments and the banks have framed their respective schemes for consideration of compassionate appointment. The Union Bank of India in its scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds provided in para 4 that compassionate appointment will be offerred by the bank only in the case where the bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that but for profession of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis. The bank declined the request on the ground that the respondent family was not indigent. The terminal benefits and the monthly family pension was sufficient for the family. 15. In Union Bank of India v. MT Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350 , the Supreme Court considered a case in which Union of India rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the terminal benefits, monthly family pension received was sufficient for maintaining the family. The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. In the Civil Appeal the Supreme Court after referring to the judgments in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra); Gursaran Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1996) 2 SCC 459 ; GM (D & PB) v. Kunti Tiwari, (2000) 6 SCC 493 ; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 and Balbeer Kaur v. State Authority of India, (2000) 6 SCC 493 , allowed the appeal on the ground that the bank had considered the application in terms of the statutory schemes framed by the bank. The bank did not find the applicant eligible for appointment. The High Court could not have held otherwise. The compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factor should be financial conditions of the family. 16. In General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC 205 , the Supreme Court revisited the law of compassionate appointment, in a matter arising out of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1994. It was held that if the deceased was not a Government servant, the question of applicability of the Rules did not arise. It was held that if the deceased was not a Government servant, the question of applicability of the Rules did not arise. The compassionate appointment has to be given strictly in accordance with the Rules. 17. In Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481 , the Supreme Court reported in paras 11 and 12 as follows : “11.The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.” 18. In State of Chattisgarh and others v. Dhirjo Kumar Segar, (2009) 13 SCC 600 , the Supreme Court held that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody can claim appointment by way of inheritance. It is a concession and not a right. The Supreme Court followed SAIL v. Madhu Sudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560 and I.G. (Karmik) Prahlad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 , in which it was held that an employee of a State enjoys a status. The recruitment of employees of the State is governed by the Rules framed under an statute or the proviso appended to Art.309 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of appointment the State is obliged to give effect to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointment, therefore, must confirm to the said constitutional scheme. In the matter of appointment the State is obliged to give effect to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointment, therefore, must confirm to the said constitutional scheme. The Court, however, while laying emphasis carved out exception in favour of the children or other relatives of the officer, who died or become incapacitated while rendering service in the police department. It reminded that public employment is considered to be a wealth. In its premise of constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by the Court, the same must be strictly complied with. The appointment on compassionate ground, is given only for meeting the minimum hardship, which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. 19. The principles of consideration for compassionate appointment have been firmly settled and have been reiterated from time to time. The compassionate appointment is not a vested right or an alternate mode of employment. It has to be considered and granted under the relevant rules. The object of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crisis. It is not a heritable right to be considered after unreasonable period, for the vacancies cannot be held up for long and that appointment should not ordinarily await the attainment of majority. Where the family has survived for long, its circumstances must be seen before the competent authority may consider such appointment. It is not to be ordinarily granted, where a person died close to his retirement. The Court, however, has emphasised time to time and more authoritatively in National Institute of Technology v. Neeraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 , that such appointment can be granted only under a scheme. It should not be considered after long lapse of time. 20. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 was herself appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her husband in harness. She was appointed on 13.10.1984, and served in the Railways for about 16 years upto 14.7.2000. She had a few year left to retire. It should not be considered after long lapse of time. 20. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 was herself appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her husband in harness. She was appointed on 13.10.1984, and served in the Railways for about 16 years upto 14.7.2000. She had a few year left to retire. Her son (petitioner No. 2) was 26 years and four months old when she was invalidated. Her son was married with three children and was employed. The petitioner No. 1 had received Rs.71,825/- towards invalidation and was receiving monthly pension of Rs.1725 and DA and Rs.805/- per month as exgratia in lieu of her husband’s services. The family also possessed one bigha and five biswas of agricultural land in the village. 21. The Master Circular dated 12.12.1990 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways consolidated the number of office orders/circulars issued from time to time and provided for circumstances in which compassionate appointments may be given to persons eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds; the time limit for making compassionate appointments, qualification and conditions to be fulled, grades in which appointments can be made on compassionate grounds; the procedure to be followed before making compassionate appointments; the authority competent to make appointments on compassionate grounds; the priorities to be observed in making appointment on compassionate grounds; the relaxation to be made in individual cases of merit with the prior approval of the Ministry of Railways. 22. Para 1 (iv) of the Master Circular provides for a condition in which that when Railway employees become crippled while in service or develop serious ailments like heart disease, cancer, etc., or otherwise and are medically decategorised for the job they are holding and no alternative job of the same emoluments can be offered to them. The period remaining in service is not a condition for entitlement. The persons eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds in para 3 is a son, daughter, widow, widow of the employees. The dependent should have attained the age of majority subject to the time limit prescribed in para 5 of the circular. The candidates are to be subjected to suitability test as provided under para 8. The persons eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds in para 3 is a son, daughter, widow, widow of the employees. The dependent should have attained the age of majority subject to the time limit prescribed in para 5 of the circular. The candidates are to be subjected to suitability test as provided under para 8. If they are qualified to receive such appointment by a committee of three Senior Scale Officers one of whom should be a Personnel Officer, para 10 of the Master Circular provides for priorities to be observed in making appointment on compassionate grounds. Para 10 (a) of the Master Circular is quoted below : “10. Priorities to be observed in making appointment on compassionate grounds . - (a) The following should be the order of priority to be followed while making appointments on compassionate grounds : (i) Dependents of employees who die or are permanently crippled in the course of duty. (ii) Dependents of employees who die in harness as a result of Railway or other accidents when off duty. (iii) Dependents of employees who : (a) die in service or are totally incapacitated while in service irrespective of the period of service left to reach the age superannuation or of earning retirement benefits in full, or (b) are medically decategorised with less than 30 years of qualifying service for pensionary benefits 30 years of service for SC to PF “ 23. We find substance in the contention that the entitlement to pension and the short period left in service could not be a ground to deny the appointment to the son of a permanently disabled employee. The Master Circular however is only a compilation of the guidelines for such compassionate appointment. It is neither exhaustive nor can be treated to confer an indefeasible statutory right, if the conditions in the circular are fulfilled. The Railway Authorities have still to look into the entire facts and circumstances of each case. Their decisions should not loose objectivity. A compassionate appointment is given to a dependent of the family to tide over immediate financial crisis faced on the death or invalidation of the bread earner. The Railway Authorities have still to look into the entire facts and circumstances of each case. Their decisions should not loose objectivity. A compassionate appointment is given to a dependent of the family to tide over immediate financial crisis faced on the death or invalidation of the bread earner. The Government or the public authority, as it was held in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra)’s case, has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased or the invalidated employee, and only if it is satisfied that the family will not be able meet the financial crisis, the job has to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The law has been reiterated in all subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court upto State of Chattisgarh and others v. Dhirjo Kumar Segar [ 2009 (13) SCC 600 ]. 24. The grounds for rejecting the compassionate appointment were upheld by the Tribunal. The petitioner No. 1 had only a few years more to serve. She is getting pension apart from ex-gratia, on account of death of her husband. Her children were married and were settled in the 16 years she had served. The family was not left in any distress. Her son was in a private employment and was maintaining his family with the help of pension and ex-gratia amount received by his mother. In such a situation, the decision to reject her request was nor arbitrary or illegal. 25. The writ petition is dismissed. ————