JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—The applications made by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for compassionate appointment in view of the death of their father during harness while working with Allahabad Bank have been refused acceptance with the remark that in view of the changed scheme of the Allahabad Bank, only ex gratia payment is to be provided to the dependents of an employee dying during harness. The petitioners may, therefore, submit their applications in proper form for computation of ex gratia payment. The order dated 20.2.2006 in that regard has been challenged by means of the present writ petition. It has been stated that the applications of the petitioners for compassionate appointment were processed as early as on 9.10.2004 by the Personnel Administrative Department at the Head Office of the Allahabad Bank. Compassionate appointments were approved under the said resolution. However before the resolution could be given effect to and appointment could be offered, there was change in the Scheme pertaining to compassionate appointment enforced in the Bank. On 4.2.2005 a Circular was issued by the Allahabad Bank for providing payment of ex gratia amount to the dependent of the employees dying during harness. It is stated that under the said Scheme which has become effective from 18.12.2004, the right of compassionate appointment has been taken away. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Scheme is prospective in nature and will not have the effect of taking away the right of the petitioners for compassionate appointment which was approved by the Personnel Administrative Department of the Bank in its Meeting dated 9.10.2004. He submits that since the Scheme is prospective in nature, the right accrued in favour of the petitioner under the earlier scheme will not be adversely effected. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578 (specifically para 26), which lays down that the case of compassionate appointment has to be considered on the date the application was made. He points out that on the date of making the application and even on the date of final consideration of his application by the Personnel Administrative Department of Bank in its meeting held on 9.10.2004, the scheme providing for compassionate appointment was in force. 3. He points out that on the date of making the application and even on the date of final consideration of his application by the Personnel Administrative Department of Bank in its meeting held on 9.10.2004, the scheme providing for compassionate appointment was in force. 3. On behalf of the respondent Bank, it is stated that mere approval of the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment will not create any right in their favour and, therefore, if the Bank has decided to do away with compassionate appointment under its Scheme floated on 4.2.2005 which has come into effect on 18.12.2004, no compassionate appointment can be offered subsequent to that date irrespective of the fact whether the application for compassionate appointment was made, processed and approved prior to the enforcement of the new Scheme. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Orissa through Secretary Commerce and Transport Department, Bhubaneshwar v. Haraprasad and others, 1998 (1) ESC 74 (SC), no right is conferred merely because of empanelment of the candidate in the select list. 4. Counsel for the respondent bank clarifies in reply that since no appointment letter was issued and in between the scheme was altered, it cannot be said that his claim was finally considered under resolution dated 9.10.2004. No appointment on compassionate ground can be offered after the enforcement of scheme of 2005. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 6. The issue with regard to the consideration of an application for compassionate appointment has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur (supra) and in paragraph 26 it has been held as follows : “26. Finally in the fact situation of this case, Shri Sukhbir Inder Singh (late), Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts) on 1-8-1999, in the Dhab Wasti Rm, Amritsar Branch, passed away. The respondent, widow of Shri 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. The respondent, widow of Shri 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. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of the deceased is Rs 5855 only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by late Shri Sukhbir Inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water.” 7. In view of the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it has to be examined in the facts of the present case as to under which scheme the claim of the petitioner has to be considered. Since the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner in the year 2002-2003 and at the relevant point of time the scheme in force provided for compassionate appointment, his application was liable to be considered in accordance with the said scheme only. 8. This Court may now deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondent bank to the effect that there has been no final consideration of the application of the petitioner till the issuance of scheme 2005. 9. In the opinion of the Court the contention is totally misplaced. Under the resolution of the Personnel Administrative Department of the Bank as per its meeting dated 9th October, 2004 the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was allowed and he was directed to be offered compassionate appointment. The application of the petitioner stood finally disposed of and what remained was the performance of the ministerial act of issuance of the appointment letter. 10. This Court therefore, holds that both on the date the application was made as well as on the date it was finally considered by the Personnel Administrative Department of the Bank, the scheme as was applicable provided for compassionate appointment. The enforcement of scheme dated 4.2.2005, which has done away with compassionate appointment, has no application qua the case of the petitioner. 11. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The enforcement of scheme dated 4.2.2005, which has done away with compassionate appointment, has no application qua the case of the petitioner. 11. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Respondent bank is directed to take appropriate action for appointment of the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Personnel Administrative Department of the Bank dated 9.10.2004, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. ————