ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 2. Husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 was serving the State Bank of India (for short “S.B.I.”) as Messenger (Class IV post). While in service, he died on 12.7.2002. Petitioner No. 1 (widow of the deceased employee) left her claim for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of her son (petitioner No. 2). Accordingly, petitioner No. 2 applied on class-III post on compassionate grounds. The claim of the petitioner No. 2 was considered and rejected by order dated 1.10.2004. The said order was impugned by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2036 of 2006. This Court on consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, did not find any fault with the stand of the S.B.I. in declining the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on Class-III post. However, in the concluding part of the said order, this Court observed as under: “Even while declining to grant any positive relief to the petitioner this Court disposes off the writ application with the observation that if the petitioner applies for a Class-IV post, the respondents are expected to consider any such application afresh by independent application of mind in accordance with the Rules and to be not prejudiced in any manner merely because the petitioner failed to achieve success in class III appointment.“ 3. There is no controversy between the parties that pursuant to the said observation made by this Court, petitioner No. 2 made another application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said prayer has been declined. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid stand of the respondent Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while considering the claim of petitioner No. 2, he was treated as unreserved category. The respondents have acted contrary to the direction of this Court made in C.W.J.C. No. 2036 of 2006. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while considering the claim of petitioner No. 2, he was treated as unreserved category. The respondents have acted contrary to the direction of this Court made in C.W.J.C. No. 2036 of 2006. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, relying on averments made in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, submits that the case of petitioner No. 2 cannot be considered for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on any post in the S.B.I. in view of the fact that the scheme of grant of compassionate appointment has been amended and a scheme for grant of Ex-gratia payment has been adopted by the respondent Bank w.e.f. 4.8.2005. It is submitted that in terms of the provision contained therein, all applications pending at that point of time for compassionate appointment is/are required to be considered in the light of the amended scheme of the Bank. It is submitted that the aforesaid scheme fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B.I. and Anr versus Raj Kumar (2010) 11 S.C.C. 661 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the stipulations made therein, held that any claim for compassionate appointment pending on the day is now required to be considered in the light of the amended scheme of the Bank. In the submission of the counsel for the respondents, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of appointment on Class-IV post on compassionate ground, in view of the amended scheme, cannot be allowed. 6. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the claim made by the petitioner No. 2 was in the light of the concession/observation granted by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2036 of 2006. That was merely an observation of the Court and not direction. It is settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to general rule. It is also well settled that such appointment has to be made or granted within four corners of the scheme upon which such claim has been rested. Court, in such matter, cannot direct the authority to act in breach of the scheme. It is settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to general rule. It is also well settled that such appointment has to be made or granted within four corners of the scheme upon which such claim has been rested. Court, in such matter, cannot direct the authority to act in breach of the scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.B.I. and Anr versus Raj Kumar (supra) has already held that in view of the amended scheme of the Bank, the pending applications, is/are now required to be considered in the light of the amended scheme. The amended scheme of the S.B.I. does not provide for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. In my view, in this factual background, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. The application is dismissed.