ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by rejection of her candidature in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment. The contention of the petitioner is that her husband was an employee of Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Morena (M.P.) and died in harness while in service on 12.7.2005. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as Branch Manager, Porsa, District Morena. The petitioner has further stated that immediately after the death of her husband, she has submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment as per policy dated 23.1.1998, which was in existence for considering the cases in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioner has further stated that vide letter dated 11.10.2005, she was directed to submit further information for processing the case for grant of compassionate appointment and as desired by the respondent-bank, additional information was furnished by her vide letter dated 26.10.2005. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents inspite of passing appropriate orders in the matter, delayed the matter for a period of about one year and vide letter dated 16.12.2006, the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was turned down. The petitioner was informed that she will be entitled for grant of a lump-sum amount under the new policy issued by the Government of India and is applicable to the respondent-bank. The petitioner's grievance is that in ex-gratia policy issued by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India and adopted by the respondent-bank cannot be made applicable in case of the petitioner and cannot be wiped out the vested right accrued in favour of the petitioner prior to issuance of such policy. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. Swamy Das v. Union of India, reported in 2002(1) JLL 350= 2002(2) MPHT 320 ]. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sunil Raghuwanshi v. State of M.P. and another, in Writ Petition No.3774/ 07(5), wherein again this Court has held that the policy in vogue will have to be looked into while considering the cases for grant of compassionate appointment and any subsequent policy cannot be looked into for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of R.S. Ajara and others v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (1997)3 SCC 641 , and his contention is that the benefit which has accrued in favour of a person under the existing rules cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment with retrospective effect. He has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-bank and the respondent-bank has admitted the fact that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of Kshetriya Gramin Bank and the death took place on 12.7.2005. The respondent-bank has also admitted that the petitioner did submit an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the petitioner was directed to submit further information on 11.10.2005 enabling the Board to take an appropriate decision in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment. The respondent-bank has further stated that the matter was forwarded to the sponsoring Bank, i.e., Central Bank of India, Mumbai and as a fresh policy was introduced by the Government of India known as model scheme for payment of ex-gratia (lump-sum amount), in lieu of appointment of compassionate grounds in Regional Rural Banks, the case of the petitioner was turned down and the petitioner was informed to submit an appropriate application for grant of lump-sum amount as per the subsequent policy. Annexure R-3 enclosed along with the return, which is a letter of sponsoring Bank, i.e., Central Bank of India reflects that the policy introduced by the Government of India vide letter dated 9.6.2006 shall be applicable in Regional Rural Bank from the date it is approved by Regional Rural Bank. It has also been stated that the Board of Directors of respondent-bank has approved and adopted the policy only on 6.10.2006 and, therefore, the contention of the respondent bank is that once the policy framed by the Government of India has been adopted by the respondent-bank by passing a Resolution by the Board on 6.10.2006, the question of considering the case for grant, of compassionate appointment does not arise. The respondents have further stated that as per the new scheme, no compassionate appointment can be done and the petitioner is entitled only for a lump-sum amount. The respondents have further stated that as per the new scheme, no compassionate appointment can be done and the petitioner is entitled only for a lump-sum amount. An additional return has also been filed and it has been reiterated by the respondents that the Board of Directors of the Bank took a decision on 6.10.2006 and it has adopted the new scheme for payment of ex-gratia (lump-sum amount) and the petitioner shall not be entitled for grant of compassionate appointment and shall be entitled only for ex-gratia (lump-sum amount). The respondent-bank prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. In the present case, the petitioner before this Court is a widow of late K.C. Sharma, Branch Manager who has served as a Manager in Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Morena, now renamed as Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and expired on 12.7.2005. At the time· of the death of the petitioner's husband, the policy dated 23.1.1998 was in vogue. The aforesaid policy is enclosed as Annexure P-4 along with the writ petition. Clause 4 of the policy provides for appointment on compassionate ground and the competent authority to issue appointment order by Board of Directors with the sanction of sponsoring Bank. An application was submitted by the petitioner immediately after the death of her husband and the respondents sought certain clarifications from the petitioner vide letter dated 11.10.2005 and the petitioner immediately submitted all the desired information to the respondent-bank vide letter dated 26.10.2005. The subsequent policy issued by the Government of India is enclosed as Annexure P-11 and clause 13 also provides that the scheme of compassionate appointment as framed by the Government of India shall come into force from the date it is approved by the Board of Bank and in the present case, the respondent-bank has adopted and approved scheme only on 6.10.2006. The scheme also provides that pending cases shall also be governed by the new scheme as adopted by the Board of Directors. The petitioner's grievance is that her case cannot be turned down on the basis of subsequent scheme, which has been adopted by the Bank on 6.10.2006 in view of especially the fact that her husband's death took place on 12.7.2005. 6. The petitioner's grievance is that her case cannot be turned down on the basis of subsequent scheme, which has been adopted by the Bank on 6.10.2006 in view of especially the fact that her husband's death took place on 12.7.2005. 6. Learned counsel for respondent-bank has relied 'upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009)6 SCC 481 . He has placed heavy reliance on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the aforesaid judgment. Paragraphs 11 and 12 read as under: "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, in as much 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 ~ ho 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." 7. The apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that the compassionate appointment cannot be a mode or cannot be another source of recruitment and it cannot be treated as bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in the Government service. In the present case, the petitioner is not claiming compassionate appointment as a matter of right. She is claiming consideration of her case for grant of compassionate appointment as a matter of right by virtue of policy dated 23.1.1998 and, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the petitioner is not claiming compassionate appointment as a matter of right. She is claiming consideration of her case for grant of compassionate appointment as a matter of right by virtue of policy dated 23.1.1998 and, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on facts. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of General Manager (D&PB) and others v. Kunti Tiwaryand another, reported in (2004)7 SCC 271 , he has placed heavy reliance on paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under: "9. On the basis of criteria as recommended by the India Banks' Association and adopted by the appellant Bank, it could not be said that the family of the late K.N. Tiwary had been left in "penury" or "without any means of livelihood". The particulars of their income have been noted in their application and it certainly could not be said on the basis thereof that the respondents were living hand to mouth. The Division Bench erred in diluting this criteria of penury to one of "not very well-to-do"." 8. In the present case also it has been held that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and an application for grant of compassionate appointment has to be considered on merits. The petitioner before this Court is claiming consideration on her application on merits as per policy dated 23.1.1998 and, therefore, as her case has not been considered for compassionate grounds on merits, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is again distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, reported in 2005(1) MPLJ 225 . Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the aforesaid judgment read as under: "9. One other thing which needs to be considered is whether the retrial benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment. The High Court was of the view that the same was not to be taken into consideration. The view is contrary to what has been held recently in G.M. (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary [ (2004)7 SCC 271 ]. It was categorically held that the amounts have to be taken into consideration. The High Court was of the view that the same was not to be taken into consideration. The view is contrary to what has been held recently in G.M. (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary [ (2004)7 SCC 271 ]. It was categorically held that the amounts have to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, there was a scheme called "Scheme for Employment of the dependants of the Employees Who Die while in the Service of the Bank -- Service on Compassionate Grounds" (in short "the Scheme" operating in appellant 1 Bank which categorically provides as follows: Financial condition of the family. -- The dependants of an employee dying in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment provided the family is without sufficient means of livelihood, specifically keeping in view the following: (a) Family pension. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to PF. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LI C policy and other investments of the deceased employee. (f) Income of family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc. It is most respectfully submitted that the Board of Directors of the petitioner Bank had approved the above said scheme, which was based upon the guidelines by Indian Banks' Association' to all the public sector banks which in turn are based upon laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (supra). The scheme after approval was circulated vide PDCL 6/97 read with PDCL 11/99 dated 17.4.1999." 10. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that in case of similarly situated persons compassionate appointment have been made by the Bank. But the appellants have justified the non-consideration of the respondent's appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the other cases related to non-pensionable category and unlike the case of the respondent, the other persons who were extended the benefits were not receiving any pension. 11. View taken by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and both the order of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench are accordingly set aside." 9. The apex Court in the aforesaid case has again held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The apex Court in the aforesaid case has again held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the present case, the petitioner is not claiming compassionate appointment as a matter of right. The only grievance is that her case should have been considered on merits keeping in view the policy dated 27.1.1998. This Court, while dealing with a similar situation in respect of applicability of the policy in the case of Sunil Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P. and another, passed in Writ Petition No.2774/07(S) has held as under: "In the present case, it is not in dispute that the death of the Government servant took place on 20th May 2005 and an application was submitted on 6.6.2005. At the relevant point of time, the policy dated 1.5.2000 was in vogue and, therefore, in all fairness the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents as per the policy dated 1.5.2000 which provides for grant of compassionate appointment to all those persons who are having total income less than Rs.35,000/-. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. Swamy Dass v. Union of India [ 2002(1) JLJ 350 = 2002(3) MPLJ 242 ], while dealing with an issue relating to applicability of policy in paragraphs 8 and 10 has held as under: "8. Giving consideration to the matter, we are of considered opinion that case of the petitioner should have been considered under the policy of June 13, 1987. Father of petitioner died on October 29, 1992. Same year, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground against class IV post. There is no dispute that he was eligible at that time. He and his mother furnished material sought by the respondents in support of the claim. Therefore, the respondents should not have delayed consideration of the claim for seven years. The fault was on the part of respondents and not of the petitioner. The case of petitioner should have been considered on the basis of requirements under policy dated June 13, 1987 and not on the basis of later policy of October 9, 1998 and the decision so arrived is liable to be set aside. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated September 7, 2000 is set aside. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated September 7, 2000 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground against Group D post within a period of two months. There shall be no order as to cost." The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that the policy, which was applicable at the time the application was submitted and at the time the death took place, should have been made applicable for grant of compassionate appointment. A similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Heeralal Baria v. M.P. State Electricity Board and another [ILR (2008) M.P. 221]. This Court has again in the case of Bhupendra v. State of M.P. and others [ 2009(III) MPWN 55 = 2009(3) MPLJ 65 ], has held that the policy prevailing at the time of death and when the application for grant of compassionate appointment was made, has to be taken into consideration while passing an order in respect of grant of compassionate appointment. This Court in the aforesaid case in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 has held as under: "6. In the case of T. Swami Dass v. Union of India and others [ 2002(1) JLJ 350 =2000(3) MPLJ 242], Division Bench of this Court has held that the policy prevailing at the time of death and when the application for compassionate appointment has made, has to be applied existence subsequently. 7. Having regard to the law laid down in the case of T. Swami Das (supra), and the facts as enumerated above, the impugned order by which the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by applying the policy which came into existence much later is not sustainable. The petitioner's case ought to have been considered in view of the policy in vogue at the time of death of his father and when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. 8. In the circumstances, impugned order dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The petitioner's case ought to have been considered in view of the policy in vogue at the time of death of his father and when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. 8. In the circumstances, impugned order dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, keeping in view the policy prevailing at the time of death of the petitioner's father and at the time of death of the petitioner's making application, keeping in mind that the petitioner's case was already recommended by the authorities of the Forest Department for compassionate appointment prior to coming into force of the policy dated 22.1.2007." Resultantly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, as this Court is of the considered opinion that the policy issued in the year 2007 has wrongly been applied in the case of petitioner, the impugned order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the respondent-Collector is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent Collector to consider the case of the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the earlier policy issued by the State Government dated 1.5.2000 enclosed as Annexure P-26. The aforesaid exercise of considering the case of the petitioner and passing a fresh order as per policy dated 1.5.2000 shall be concluded within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs." 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by this Court, as policy dated 23.1.1998 was in vogue at the time of de9th of the petitioner's husband and also keeping in view that the petitioner has immediately submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment, the subsequent policy issued by the Government of India and adopted by respondent-Bank on 6.10.2006 shall not wipe out the right accrued in favour of the petitioner by virtue of policy dated 23.1.1998. The subsequent policy cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect keeping in view the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5379/08 and the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered on merits as per the policy dated 23.1.1998. The subsequent policy cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect keeping in view the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5379/08 and the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered on merits as per the policy dated 23.1.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment delivered in the case of R.S. Ajara and others v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (1997)3 SCC 641 , the apex Court in paragraph 16 has held as under: "16. The resolution dated 31.1.1992 has been assailed by the promo tee officers on the ground that it is retrospective in operation and affects their rights. The law in this field is well settled by the decisions of this Court. A benefit that has accrued under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect and no statutory rule or administrative order can whittle down or destroy any right which has become crystallized and no rule can be framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which affects or impairs the vested rights : {See : State of Gujarat v. Raman Lai Keshav Lal Soni, K.G. Arora (Ex. Capt.) v. State of Haryana, T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar}. Can it be said that the resolution dated 31.1.1992 makes any change in the existing provision governing the seniority so as to take away or deprive the respondents of a right which has accrued to them or which has crystallized? As noticed earlier, the 1981 Rules do not contain any principle governing the seniority of Assistant Conservators of Forests appointed under the said Rules. Shri P.P. Rao has invited our attention to the Handbook for personnel officers issued by the General Administration Department of the Government of Gujarat. In para 1 of Chapter V, dealing with seniority, is stated: "In the case of direct recruits appointed on probation, the seniority would be determined ordinarily with reference to the date of their appointment on probation while in the case of promotees, seniority would be determined with reference to the date of their promotion to long term vacancies." 11. In para 1 of Chapter V, dealing with seniority, is stated: "In the case of direct recruits appointed on probation, the seniority would be determined ordinarily with reference to the date of their appointment on probation while in the case of promotees, seniority would be determined with reference to the date of their promotion to long term vacancies." 11. In the present case, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by the apex Court, as a right accrued in favour of the petitioner immediately after the death of her husband in the year 2005, the respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioner as per the policy dated 23.1.1998 and the same has not been done. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the respondent-bank dated 16.12.2006, 13.1.2007 and 3.6.2008 are, hereby, quashed. The respondent-bank is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits for grant of compassionate appointment keeping in view the policy dated 23.1.1998. The aforesaid exercise for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment shall be concluded positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.