JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein Mr. Anchal Singh Rana, has knocked the doors of this court for grant of employment on compassionate grounds for the second time. Shorn of details facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that admittedly late Shri Onkar Singh Rana, father of the petitioner was employed with the respondent-Punjab National Bank as Peon-cum-Daftari-cum-Guard. However, unfortunately he died during harness at the age of 50 years on 19.12.1998, leaving behind four sons including the petitioner, wife and mother. The deceased Shri Onkar Singh Rana, was an Ex-Serviceman. Consequent upon death of the deceased, the petitioner applied to the respondent-bank for grant of employment on compassionate grounds to which other legal heirs of the deceased concurred. However, the request of the petitioner was turned down by the bank on the ground that the family of the deceased was not in financial hardship. 2. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner approached this court by filing CWP No. 356 of 2005. In that matter, by an order dated 4.5.2007, this court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of the aforesaid employment. 3. On consideration of the matter, the respondents vide communication dated 16.6.2007, Annexure P-3, after noticing the relevant factors again declined the prayer on behalf of the petitioner for grant of employment on compassionate grounds vide para G), which is to the following effect:- "As such, under the scheme for providing employment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member, in case of untimely death of an employee while in the service of the Bank, the application moved on behalf of Shri Anchal Singh, requesting for his employment on compassionate grounds in Clerical Cadre in place of his father Late Shri Onkar Singh, expired on 19.12.1998, ex-Peon/Daftari/Guard, last posted at BO: Raipur, Chandigarh Zone; has been reconsidered as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Shimla, dated 04.05.2007, in terms of the scheme of the Bank. After due consideration, the application is declined, as the financial condition of the family is not found to be indigent, for the reasons stated above." On perusal of Annexure P-3, it is evident that family of the deceased is possessed of the following immovable, movable property and other pecuniary income as detailed in para D) of the communication:- "(a) Immovable property : Dwelling house + Land 4 kanals. Market Value : Rs. 80,000/- + Rs. 1.70 lakh. - Monthly income : Rs. 9000/- p.a. (b) Amount of net Terminal Dues paid : Rs. 84,783/- (c) Compensation paid by Bank/its welfare fund : NIL (d) Family Pension payable (Basic + DA) : Not optd. (e) Pension received from Armed Forces, if any : Rs. 1898/- (f) Details of LIC Policy & other investments : NIL (g) Income from other sources : Rs. 9000/- p.a (h) Employment of other family members : Eldest son employed in Agriculture Sector (i) Size of the family/Liabilities : 5 (Widow, 3 sons & mother) (j) Gross and Net Salary : Gross Rs. 4624.04 : Net Rs. 2837.94" From the above, it can be safely gathered that the family of the deceased is not possessed of moveable and immoveable property and other pecuniary income to the extent that it cannot be said to be in financial hardship. The deceased was barely 50 years old and is survived by his mother, wife and four sons. It is not as if any one of them is employed in organised sector. Only one son is stated to be employed in agriculture sector, but, without any mention of fixed monthly/yearly income. 4. Though, it is by now settled by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that employment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right/charity, yet what is relevant is whether owing to the death of the deceased the family is really in financial hardship or not. See Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 365, State of J & K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766 and Union Bank of India and others v. M.T. Latheesh (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 350. 5. See Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 365, State of J & K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766 and Union Bank of India and others v. M.T. Latheesh (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 350. 5. In cases where the deceased has left a considerable legacy which is sufficient for the living, maintenance and upkeep of the family, employment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, where it is found that the family is really in financial hardship, as in the present case and requires succour, employment on compassionate grounds must be provided. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, I am more than satisfied that it is a case of such nature where the family of the deceased really deserves indulgence from the employer of the deceased by way of grant of employment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner, so that the income so generated may be utilised for upkeep of the family, which on unfortunate death of the deceased who was a lowly employee has been rendered without any succour. 7. Further more in para vii of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents there is a mention about HRD Division Circular Nos. 235, dated 07.01.2005 and 433, dated 03.11.2007, which do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that the deceased had died in the year 1998 and it being so, PD Circular No. 6/97, dated 20.3.1997, mentioned in the said para ought to have been applied and the case in hand decided on its basis. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents shall grant employment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.