JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. Vinod Kumar, son of late Sh. Samunder Singh for compassionate employment with the respondent-Food Corporation of India. The claim of compassionate employment is on the ground that the father of the petitioner late Sh. Samunder Singh died in harness on 19.5.2003. The petitioner places reliance upon a report dated 19.11.2003 of a committee of the respondent which recommended appointment to a family member of late Sh. Samunder Singh. The respondent has contested the petition. There are two basic defences which are laid out. The first defence is that compassionate employment could not be given to the petitioner because at the relevant time, the ceiling limit of 5% of direct recruitment posts through compassionate employment was already exhausted. Counter-affidavit also states that there is already surplus labour with the respondent, and schemes are being taken out for voluntary retirement of surplus labour and therefore, the petitioner cannot be employed by giving compassionate employment as a labourer. By the second defence in the counter-affidavit it is contended that the office order with respect to compassionate employment of a person is that the entitlement is prevalent for three years, and since in the present case three years have expired and since within that three years there were no vacancies available in the 5% ceiling limit, petitioner could not have been given employment. 2. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 has held that compassionate employment is not a normal recruitment, but the same is an exception to the regular recruitment process. It has been further held in this judgment that compassionate employment can only be granted in terms of applicable policy of an organization and that too when there are adequate vacancies existing. The relevant paras of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) are paras 6 to 8 which read as under:- 6. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It. follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. 7. Normally, the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are: (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfilment of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. In such an event the Scheme in force at the time of death would apply. In such an event the Scheme in force at the time of death would apply. On the other hand, if a scheme provides that on the death of an employee, a dependent family member is entitled to appointment merely on making of an application, whether any vacancy exists or not, and without the need to fulfil any eligibility criteria, then the scheme creates a right in favour of the applicant, on making the application and the Scheme that was in force at the time when the application for compassionate appointment was filed, will apply. But such schemes are rare and in fact, virtually nil. 8. Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility requirements, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. Under many schemes, the applicant has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these schemes there is a need to verify the eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a Selection Committee to assess the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limited number of earmarked vacancies. Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, up to the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts. (underlining added) 3. In view of the facts as averred in the counter-affidavit that no vacancies were available, in fact there is surplus labour employed with the respondent, thus, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) petitioner cannot be granted compassionate employment. 4. One additional point which was urged on behalf of the petitioner in the additional affidavit was that two persons namely Sh. Suresh Chand, S/o late Sh. Veerpal Singh and Mohd. Niyas, S/o late Mohd. Qazim were appointed on the compassionate ground, and therefore, petitioner should not be discriminated against by denying compassionate employment. To this aspect, the respondent in the additional counter-affidavit has stated that both Sh. Veerpal Singh and Sh. Mohd. Qazim died within the work premises, which led to huge labour unrest and, therefore, to defuse the situation, appointments were granted to the family members to these persons which was therefore an administrative exigency. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that cases of appointment to Sh. Suresh Chand and Mohd. Niyas cannot be taken as precedent for other compassionate employments. I agree with this stand of respondent because every employer has to run its organization, and exceptional cases cannot be allowed to be made a general rule. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.