JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the Petitioner, who was once in the waiting list of applicants approved for appointment under relaxation of normal Recruitment Rules in the cadre of Postman/MG by the Circle Selection Committee held on 23.09.1997 for compassionate appointment under the Central Government Scheme for compassionate appointment dated 09.10.1998; but vide Postal Directorate Memo No. SPB-1 dated 08.02.2001, system of keeping the waiting list was abolished, is challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 30.08.2010 passed in Original Application (OA) No. 223 of 2010 dismissing the O.A. No. 223/2010 filed by the writ Petitioner for setting aside the impugned letter dated 26.07.1999 issued by the authority concerned terminating the service of the writ Petitioner and order dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Post Master General, Assam Circle, Guwahati-1 and also for a direction to reinstate the writ Petitioner to the post of Postman or any other equivalent post in terms of the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government dated 09.10.1998. 2. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and also Ms. R. Borah, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. PROLOGUE 3. This case has a chequered history inasmuch as the present Petitioner approached this Court for the third time for the same relief for a direction to the Respondents to appoint him in the cadre post of Postman/MG under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government dated 09.10.1998. 4. For deciding the matter in dispute in the present writ petition, this Court requires to make a quick curiosity of the salient features of the scheme of the Central Government for compassionate appointment under the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel & Training), New Delhi-110001, October 9, 1998. 5. The scheme started with the opening words "the existing instructions making compassionate appointment under the Central Government have since been reviewed in the light of various Court judgments and other decisions including those taken on the various recommendations" contained in the 5th Central Pay Commission Report as well as the study report of 1990 and 1994 prepared by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances on the subject and they have, accordingly been revised/simplified and consolidated as in the scheme which will supersede all the existing instructions on the subject. 6. 6. The very object of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate ground to a dependant family member of the Government servant died in harness or who is retired on medical ground, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to revive the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help tide over the emergency. 7. For the present case, paras 7 and 8 of the die-in-harness scheme dated 09.10.1998 are relevant and, accordingly, quoted hereunder: 7. Determination/availability of vacancies (a) Appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on regular basis and that too only if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are available. (b) Compassionate appointments can be made up to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' or 'D' post. The appointing authority may hold back up to 5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassionate grounds. A person selected for appointment on compassionate grounds should be adjusted in the recruitment roster against the appropriate category viz SC/ST/OBC/General depending upon the category to which he belongs, for example, if he belongs to SC category he will be adjusted against the SC reservation point, if he is ST/OBC, he will be adjusted against ST/OBC point and if he belongs to General category, he will be adjusted against the vacancy point meant for General Category. (c) While the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making appointment of dependent family member of Government Servant on casual/daily wage/ad-hoc/contract basis against regular vacancies, there is no bar to considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders governing such appointments. (d) The ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for making compassionate appointment should not be exceeded by utilizing any other vacancy e.g.. sports quota vacancy. (e) Employment under the scheme is not confined to the Ministry/Department/Office in which deceased/medically retired Government servant had been working. Such an appointment can be given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of compassionate appointment. sports quota vacancy. (e) Employment under the scheme is not confined to the Ministry/Department/Office in which deceased/medically retired Government servant had been working. Such an appointment can be given anywhere under the Government of India depending upon availability of a suitable vacancy meant for the purpose of compassionate appointment. (f) If sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular offices to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office to take up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to provide at an early appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list, 8. Belated requests for compassionate appointment (a) Ministries/Departments can consider requests for compassionate appointment even where the death or retirement on medical grounds of a Government servant took place long back, say five years or so. While considering such belated requests it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the Government servant in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to make appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases may, therefore, be taken only at the level of the Secretary of the Department/Ministry concerned. (b) Whether a request for compassionate appointment is belated or not may be decided with reference to the date of death or retirement on medical ground of a Government Servant and not the age of the applicant at the time of consideration. 8. (b) Whether a request for compassionate appointment is belated or not may be decided with reference to the date of death or retirement on medical ground of a Government Servant and not the age of the applicant at the time of consideration. 8. On quick and attentive glimpse of the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government dated 09.10.1998 in view of the issue to be decided in the present writ petition, it is crystal clear that (1) appointment on compassionate ground should be made only on regular basis that too only if regular vacancy meant for that purpose is available; (2) compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under the direct recruit quota in any group-C and D posts; (3) while the ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by making appointment of dependant family member of Government servant on casual/daily wage/ad hoc/contract basis against regular vacancy, there is no bar to consider him for such appointment, if he is eligible as per the normal rules/orders governing such appointment; and (4) if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the person in the waiting list for compassionate appointment it is open to the Administrative Ministry/Department to take up the matter with other Minister/Department/Office of the Government to provide an early appointment on compassionate ground to those in the waiting list and (5) to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Factual Background & Sequence Of Events: 9. The writ Petitioner is the dependant of Shri Phani Bhushan Paul, Group-D, P & T, Disp, Silchar, who died in harness on 27.07.1995. The case of the Petitioner was considered by the Circle Selection Committee, in terms of the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government and approved for appointment under the relaxation of the normal Recruitment Rules in the cadre of the Postman/MG on compassionate ground in response to his application dated 25.09.1995. His name was in the waiting list of approved candidates for appointment and, accordingly, writ Petitioner had been informed under the letter of the APMG (Staff) of the office of the Chief Postmaster, Assam Circle, Guwahati dated 04.11.1997. His name was in the waiting list of approved candidates for appointment and, accordingly, writ Petitioner had been informed under the letter of the APMG (Staff) of the office of the Chief Postmaster, Assam Circle, Guwahati dated 04.11.1997. Though the Petitioner was approved for appointment on compassionate appointment, he was not appointed in 1997 because of unavailability of vacancy in the 5% quota. But purely on humanitarian ground and sympathy, in order to mitigate the financial hardships of the dependant of late Phani Bhushan Paul (Petitioner), even if Petitioner could not be appointed against the limited 5% quota of the direct recruitment for compassionate appointment, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cachar District, Silchar, vide Memo No. B1/Rectt/ Relax/Misc. Dated 22.12.1998 directed engagement of the Petitioner on short term duty in the unfilled vacancy of Postman cadre (unfilled vacancy which was not within 5% quota for compassionate appointment) with clear understanding that he cannot claim any seniority/pay benefit in future. 10. In pursuance of the said letter of the SSPO, Silchar, Petitioner was engaged oh short term duty in the unit of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices and kept attached to G C. College against an unfilled vacancy (not within the 5% quota of compassionate appointment) until further order; vide order of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Silchar North Sub-Division, Silchar, dated 28.12.1998. On 29.12.1998 Petitioner joined the short-term duties in G C. College Sub Post Office, Silchar. The Petitioner joined the short term appointment as Postmaster with the open eye that his engagement is only on short term basis and cannot claim any seniority/pay benefit in future for such short term engagement and kept in panel for absorption in the future relaxation vacancies. 11. It is also clear from the term of engagement of the Petitioner as Postmaster cadre that he was not engaged against the earmarked vacancy for compassionate appointment. The short term engagement of the Petitioner as postmaster under the said engagement order dated 28.12.1998 came to an end as the candidate for appointment in Postmaster cadre was allotted and posted in the unit where the Petitioner was working as Postmaster on short term engagement i.e. Post Office of G.C. College, Silchar North Division, and accordingly, engagement of the Petitioner as Postmaster was terminated vide order of the Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices, North Sub Division, Silchar, Memo being No. B2/K. Roy dated 26.07.1999. Again on humanitarian ground, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cachar Division Silchar under his letter being No. B1 -Rectt/Relax/Misc dated 07.01.2000 requested the SPM Haflong, S.O to obtain the consent of the Petitioner before engagement in the post of Postman on short term duty that he cannot claim any seniority/pay benefit in future in such short term engagement. On 11.01.2000, the Petitioner again joined in the cadre of Postman in Haflong Sub Post Office till the Petitioner was discharged from the cadre post of Postman in Haflong Sub Division under the instruction from the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Haflong dated 24.01.2001. Under the Postal Directorate Memo No. 24-1/99-SPB-1 dated 8.2.2001 the system of maintaining waiting list of candidate for appointment on compassionate ground was abolished. By the letter dated 22.06.2001 informed the Petitioner that as the system of maintaining waiting list of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground had been discontinued, the Petitioner was to give his willingness at an early date for taking up the matter with other Ministries along with the Directorate for appointment in other departments. The applicant conveyed his willingness for appointment in other department, however, he requested the Postmaster General, Assam Region to regularise him in the vacant post against which he was continuously working. Under letter dated 03.09.1991, Petitioner was informed that he would be absorbed in the cadre in due course as there was no vacancy by then and he had been informed that by letter dated 24.08.2001, keeping of waiting list or candidate for appointment on compassionate ground was discontinued and Directorate had decided that the Petitioner would be considered for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) and accordingly offered the post of GDS to the writ Petitioner. But the Petitioner did not opt for the GDS; and, accordingly, the said offer was lapsed after one year. 12. The Petitioner was again engaged as Postman in the cadre post of Postman in the Haflong Mukhaya Dak Ghar, under the instruction of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices Haflong. Later on as there was no vacancy in the 5% quota for compassionate appointment in the Postman cadre, in the Haflong Sub Post Office, the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Haflong Sub Division, Haflong under his letter dated 09.07.2002 requested the Postmaster, Haflong MDG NC Hills 788819 to relieve the Petitioner positively. Later on as there was no vacancy in the 5% quota for compassionate appointment in the Postman cadre, in the Haflong Sub Post Office, the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Haflong Sub Division, Haflong under his letter dated 09.07.2002 requested the Postmaster, Haflong MDG NC Hills 788819 to relieve the Petitioner positively. Accordingly, the Petitioner had been relieved from his short-term engagement as Postman in the cadre of Postman. 13. Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing OA No. 213 of 2002 for a direction to the Respondents to appoint him as Postman in the Postman cadre on compassionate ground for, according to the Petitioner; there was vacancy in the 5% quota for appointment on compassionate ground. The learned CAT vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2002 dismissed the OA No. 213 of 2002 for the reason that the Petitioner has no choice for the post for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government and by the letter dated 03.09.2001 he had been asked to give his consent for appointment to the post of GDS and also that under the scheme for die-in-harness, appointment should be only within the ceiling limit of 5% of direct recruit vacancies in a year. The learned CAT was of the opinion in the said judgment and order dated 11.10.2002 that the action of the Respondent in offering the alternative appointment of GDS cannot be faulted and writ Petitioner has not acquired any right to regular appointment outside the quota for compassionate appointment simply because his name was included in the waiting list for appointment on compassionate ground; even if the Petitioner had worked in short term vacancies i.e. leave vacancy. 14. Against the said judgment and order of the learned CAT dated 11.10.2002 for dismissing the OA No. 213 of 2002, the writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 8141 of 2002 before this Court. 14. Against the said judgment and order of the learned CAT dated 11.10.2002 for dismissing the OA No. 213 of 2002, the writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 8141 of 2002 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide common judgment and order dated 27.09.2005 disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the judgment and order of the learned CAT dated 11.10.2002 and further directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment against either Group C or D post as per the eligibility and if some vacancies are available as on today, their case will be considered against the aforesaid post along with other waiting candidates, if any, as per the existing rules and in case, no vacancy is there as on today, i.e. today their names will be registered, their case will be considered, as and when vacancy arise. 15. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in the judgment and order dated 27.09.2005 passed in the WP(C) No. 8141 of 2002 filed by the Petitioner, the Chief Postmaster General, Assam Circle, Guwahati passed order dated 20.04.2006 that under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government, it is stipulated that the compassionate appointment is limited to 5% of the direct recruit vacancies quota, appointment on compassionate ground can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose. It is a policy of the Government that compassionate appointment will be up to the extent of 5% of the vacancies available in the current year. The Ministry of law citing the Apex Courts' order opined that policy decision of the Government shall not be interfered; no Tribunal or Court can compel the Government to change its policy. However, the High Court and Administrative Tribunal cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate ground but can merely direct for consideration of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government. However, there was no vacancy in the 5% vacancies in the direct recruit for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme in the Postman cadre and also that the Petitioner has not acquired any vested right for appointment on compassionate ground simply because his name is included in the approved waiting list of candidates for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. However, there was no vacancy in the 5% vacancies in the direct recruit for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme in the Postman cadre and also that the Petitioner has not acquired any vested right for appointment on compassionate ground simply because his name is included in the approved waiting list of candidates for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. And accordingly, after due examination of the Petitioner's case sympathetically the request of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Postman in the Postman cadre was not acceded to. Against the said order of the Chief Postmaster General, Assam Circle. Guwahati, dated 20.04.2005 Petitioner again filed OA No. 240/2007 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati. The learned CAT vide order dated 20.02.2009 disposed of the OA No. 240 of 2007 and remitted back the case of the Petitioner to the Respondents for reconsideration in the matter in order to provide Petitioner an employment on compassionate ground and the entire exercise should be completed by the Respondents within 120 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 16. Pursuant to the said second order of the learned CAT dated 20.02.2009 passed in OA No. 240 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner, case of the Petitioner for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme had been reconsidered and passed order dated 27.07.2009 rejecting the case for appointment of the Petitioner to the Postman cadre post for the reason that the system of maintaining the waiting list of candidates for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme was abolished vide Postal Directorate Memo No. 24-1/99-SPB-1 dated 8.2.2001; Petitioner who had been offered the lower post of GDS had not accepted the said post; and there was no vacancy in the Postman cadre post in the 5% quota for compassionate appointment and also the case of the Petitioner that vacancy in the Postman cadre against the 5% quota for compassionate appointment was available, was not correct, it was not actually available for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme and also the scheme for compassionate appointment is for the purpose of providing immediate relief and by stretch of imagination, appointment of the Petitioner in the Postman cadre, if made, after 15 years cannot be an appointment for giving immediate relief to the family of the deceased government employee under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government. 17. 17. Against the said order of the Chief Postmaster General, Assam Circle, Guwahati dated 27.07.2009, Petitioner again approached the CAT, by filing OA No. 223 of 2010, praying or quashing the order dated 27.07.2009 issued by the authority for terminating service of the Petitioner and also for a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Postman or any other equivalent post w.e.f. the date when his service to the said post was terminated on 26.06.1999. This time the Petitioner was not fortunate inasmuch as the CAT, Guwahati, vide common judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 had dismissed the OA No. 223 of 2010. In the judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 the learned CAT made a clear finding that the practice of keeping waiting list for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme had been discontinued vide Postal Directorate letter/Memo dated 08.02.2001. Since then the keeping of waiting list of candidates for compassionate appointment had been dispensed with which caused hardships to the approved candidates who were waiting for a quite long period. On consideration of this aspect, the Postal Directorate decided to consider case of such waitlisted candidates against the vacancies in the post of GDS (Gramin Dak Sevak) subject to willingness and eligibility. The Petitioner was offered the said post of GDS by letter dated 03.09.2001 but the Petitioner declined to accept the offer for the post of GDS. The learned CAT also made clear finding that there was no vacancy in 5% quota for compassionate appointment in the Postman cadre during the lifespan of the approved waiting list which include the Petitioner and also that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis; and that as the Petitioner claimed for appointment on compassionate ground to a post of his choice i.e. in the Postman cadre after the substantial period is over even if there is no vacancy in the 5% quota for compassionate appointment, the Tribunal cannot issue direction to relax the ceiling of 5% of direct recruit quota for compassionate appointment and also that more than a decade had lapsed since the Petitioner's father (Phani Bhushan Paul) died-in-harness on 27.07.1995. Hence, the present writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 5316 of 2010. 18. Hence, the present writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 5316 of 2010. 18. CORE QUESTIONS (1) Whether or not, the dependant family member of a Government servant who died in harness (writ Petitioner) has the right for the choice of the post for appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government ? (2) Whether or not, once the dependant family member of a Government servant who died-in-harness is included in the approved waiting list of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government has acquired the vested right for an indefinite period for appointment against the vacancy in 5% of the vacancies in the direct recruitment quota even if the vacancy in the direct recruit for compassionate appointment is not available? 19. Rain of Precedents The Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. : (1994) 4 SCC 138 : JT 1994 (3) SC 525 had laid down the important principles and parameters for deciding the case of compassionate appointment: (1) Only dependants of an employee died-in-hamess leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground; (2) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. (3) Offering compassionate appointments as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is legally impermissible. (4) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. 20. Para 6 of the SCC in Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra) read as follows: 6. 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 death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. (Emphasis supplied) 21. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. (Emphasis supplied) 21. The Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 718 : (JT 1994 (2) SC 183 held that the High Court and Administrative Tribunal cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate ground; but can merely direct for consideration of the claim for such appointment. (emphasis supplied) 22. In Union of India v. Joginder Sharma (2002) 8 SCC 65 the claim for compassionate appointment was denied on the ground that the ceiling of 5% of the vacancy provided in the die-in-harness scheme had already been exhausted and department of Personnel and Training declined to relax the regulation relating to the ceiling of 5%. In that case, the Apex Court held that question of relaxing the ceiling limit of 5% being in the discretion of the authority concerned, which is purely administrative, not statutory in nature, Tribunal or Court cannot compel the authority to accrue relaxation. Para 4 of the SCC in Joginder Sharma's case (supra) read as follows: 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. The compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the sole breadwinner, who died leaving the family in penury and without sufficient means of livelihood. If under the scheme in force any such claim for compassionate appointment can be countenanced only as against a specified number of vacancies arising, in this case 5 percent, which ceiling it is claimed came to be imposed in view of certain observations emanating from this Court in an earlier decision, the Tribunal or the High Court cannot compel the department concerned to relax the ceiling and appoint a person. Since this method of appointment is in deviation of the normal recruitment process under the rules, where people are waiting in the queue indefinitely, the policy laid down by the Government regarding such appointment should not be departed from by the Courts/Tribunals by issuing directions for relaxations, merely on account of sympathetic considerations or hardships of the person concerned. This Court as early as in the decision reported in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedmar (1994) 2 SCC 718 held that the Courts cannot direct appointments on compassionate grounds dehors the provisions of the Scheme in force governed by rules/ regulations/instructions. If in a given case, the department of the Government concerned declines, as a matter of policy, not to deviate from the mandate of the provisions underlying the Scheme and refuses to relax the stipulation in respect of ceiling fixed therein, the Courts cannot compel the authorities to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular way and that too by relaxing the essential conditions, when no grievance of violation of substantial rights of parties could be held to have been proved, otherwise. (Emphasis supplied) 23. The Apex Court in Union Bank of India and Ors. v. M. T. Latheesh (2006) 7 SCC 350 had considered the scope of judicial review of the finding arrived at, on appreciation of full facts recorded in the application, for appointment in terms of the die-in-harness scheme and held that the Court should not disturb the finding of the appropriate authority that the applicant is ineligible for appointment under the die-in-harness; and also compassionate appointment can be granted in terms of the guiding features of the scheme for compassionate appointment. Paras 28, 36 and 37 of the SCC in M.T. Latheesh's case (supra) read as follows: 28. Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Bank has made several compassionate appointments quite contrary to the Scheme and, therefore, the Respondent should also be considered for such appointment on compassionate grounds. It is well settled that Article 14cannot be extended to legalise illegal orders though others had wrongly got the benefits of that order on some stray incidents earlier. 36. In the present case, by declining the application submitted by the Respondent after the proper consideration of the same in the light of the relevant parameters, the Appellant Bank cannot be said to have acted in an arbitrary manner regardless of the constitutional principles. 37. 36. In the present case, by declining the application submitted by the Respondent after the proper consideration of the same in the light of the relevant parameters, the Appellant Bank cannot be said to have acted in an arbitrary manner regardless of the constitutional principles. 37. It is also settled law that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the appointing and selecting authorities. The Bank had considered the application of the Respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment. After that even though the Bank found the Respondent ineligible for appointment to its service, the High Court has found him eligible and has ordered his appointment. This is against the law laid down by this Court. It is settled law that the principles regarding compassionate appointment that 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 factors should be financial condition of the family. The Respondent is not entitled to claim relief under the new Scheme because the financial status of the family is much above the criterion fixed in the new Scheme. (Emphasis supplied) 24. The Apex Court in I. G. (Karmik) and Ors. v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162 held that when an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, idea is not to provide for endless compassion. The ratio laid down in I. G (Karmik)'s case (supra) is that the appointment on compassionate ground should be kept confined only for the purpose under the scheme; it should be in strict terms and conditions for appointment on compassionate ground mentioned in the scheme itself. Paras 7 and 10 of the SCC in I. G. (Karmik)'s case (supra) read as follows: 7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. Paras 7 and 10 of the SCC in I. G. (Karmik)'s case (supra) read as follows: 7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family be 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. 10. Again in State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 704 this Court held: (SCC p. 707, para 6) 6. As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi (1996) 5 SCC 308 it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in-harness Scheme cannot be m(sic) applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi case (1996) 5 SCC 308 held that the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (1994) 2 SCC 718 it was pointed out that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (1994) 2 SCC 718 it was pointed out that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 that as a rule, in public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 25. The Apex Court in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi & Ors (2009) 7 SCC 205 further reiterated that the condition/rules relating to compassionate appointment have to be given strict interpretation in the appointment on compassionate ground. Paras 20, 29 and 34 of the SCC in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan's case (supra) read as follows: 20. The provisions of law which ex facie violates the equality clause and permits appointment through the side-door being unconstitutional must be held to be impermissible and in any event requires strict interpretation. It was, therefore, for the Respondents to establish that at the point of time the deceased employees were appointed, there existed regular vacancies. Offers of appointment made in favour of the deceased have not been produced. 29. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the said decision in Umadevi (3) case (2006) 4 SCC 1 is not applicable: (a) as it was rendered in 2006 whereas the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose in 2002; and (b) a distinction must be made between the appointment on ad hoc basis and appointment on compassionate ground. As to the first submission above, it is worth mentioning that judicial decisions unless otherwise specified are retrospective. They would only be prospective in nature if it has been provided therein. As to the first submission above, it is worth mentioning that judicial decisions unless otherwise specified are retrospective. They would only be prospective in nature if it has been provided therein. Such is clearly not the case in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Accordingly, even though the cause of action would have arisen in 2002 but the decision of Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 would squarely be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Secondly, before a person can claim a status of a Government servant not only his appointment must be made in terms of the recruitment rules, he must otherwise fulfil the criterion therefore. Appointment made in violation of the constitutional scheme is a nullity. Retention of service for a long time, it is well known, does not confer permanency. It is furthermore not a mode of appointment. 34. Submission of the learned Counsel that persons similarly situated have been appointed is again of not much relevance. Apart from the fact that the High Court in its impugned judgment did not proceed on the said basis, it is now well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive effect. Equality clause cannot apply in a case where it arises out of illegality. Moreover, grant of appointment on compassionate ground has its own limitations as it is an exception to the mode of regular appointment. 26. Conclusion And Finding: From the foregoing discussions, particularly the terms and conditions for appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government and precedents discussed above, we hold that the dependant family member of the Government servant who died-in-harness has no choice for post for appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government. Accordingly, we answer the Core Question No. 1 in the negative. 27. Accordingly, we answer the Core Question No. 1 in the negative. 27. So far as the Core Question No. 2 is concerned, on bare perusal of the object of the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government in view of the precedents discussed above, more particularly decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra); it is clear that on mere inclusion of the name of a dependant member of family of the Government servant who died-in-harness in the waiting list of candidates for appointment on compassionate ground, he/she shall not Require vested right for appointment on compassionate ground to a post of his/her choice; and also the precedents discussed above, Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar's case (supra), Joginder Sharma's case (supra), M.T. Latheesh's case (supra), I.G. (Karmik)'s case (supra) and General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan's case (supra) will answer that the appointment under the die-in-harness scheme should be in strict interpretation/fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the die-in-harness scheme of the Central Government. And, accordingly, we hold that 5% ceiling limit of the vacancies in the direct recruit quota for compassionate appointment is to be maintained strictly inasmuch as appointment on compassionate ground has its own limitations and is also an exception to the mode of regular appointment and also as the object of appointment under die-in-harness scheme being immediate step to mitigate the financial crunch of the family of the person died in harness, appointment under the die-in-harness scheme cannot be considered after a lapse of more than one decade from the date of death of the concerned Government employee; and also that the writ Petitioner who had already declined the offer for the post of GDS for appointment on compassionate ground cannot have the choice for post. 28. In the result, there is no illegality and infirmity in the finding of the learned CAT in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 for dismissing the OA No. 223 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner. Writ petition is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed