JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.5.2004 (reported in 2004 Lab IC 2925) passed in S.B. Civil Petition No. 9299/2002 directing the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment in their establishment, they are in appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Yash Sharma for the appellants and Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma for the respondent. 3. In brief, the pleaded version of the respondent/writ petitioner is that his father, who had been serving the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as `the Bank') as Daftari, died in harness leaving behind his widow, Smt. Lalita Devi and three sons, the eldest being the respondent/writ petitioner. On the demise of his father, his mother submitted an application with the Bank seeking his compassionate appointment in place of her husband. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, the application submitted in prescribed format of the Bank was forwarded with the recommendation of the concerned Branch Manager (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition). However, the request was rejected and the information with regard thereto was conveyed by letter dated 9.8.2002. Contending that the petitioner was eligible in all respects under the relevant scheme of the Bank for compassionate appointment, and that, he had been subjected to hostile discrimination, such appointment having been, in similar circumstances, accorded to the persons equally placed, he sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress. 4. In their reply, the appellants representing the Bank, while admitting that the father of the respondent/writ petitioner had died in harness as Daftari with the Bank on 22.8.2001, and that, his wife had applied for compassionate appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner, however asserted that in terms of the scheme in vogue, his request was not construed to be tenable. While iterating the object of the scheme for compassionate appointment to be an opportunity to enable the family in distress to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of its breadwinner, the appellants contended that in terms of the scheme in force, following factors were taken into account for determining the financial condition of the family:- "(a) Family Pension. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LIC policies and other Investments of the deceased employee. (f) Income for family from other sources. (g) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any." 5. They stated that the respondents/writ petitioner's father had expired by leaving behind his wife and three sons aged 26 years, 23 years and 18 years, all adults, capable to earn financial support for the family. Qua the respondent's/writ petitioner's plea of recommendation by the concerned Branch Manager for his appointment, the appellants contended that the decision with regard to the issue of compassionate appointment used to be taken by the Managing Director of the Bank, on a consideration of all relevant criteria set out in the scheme with regard thereto. While denying the allegation of discrimination, the appellants stated that on receiving the application for compassionate appointment, it was ascertained that the total assets of the respondent/writ petitioner was valued at Rs. 3,43,553/-and liability at Rs. 3,61,796/- and further that on the demise of his father, family pension @ Rs. 3351/- per month was being paid. They stated further that during his lifetime, the respondent's/writ petitioner's father had taken loan from the Bank from which a house was constructed in which the family used to live. 6. While reiterating the previous stand of the appellants, Mr. Sharma has further argued that having regard to the underlying purpose of compassionate appointment, the Bank's decision to decline the same to the respondent/writ petitioner is unassailable. According to him, the amount of Rs. 3,33,293/- availed by the respondent's/writ petitioner's father as loan from the bank was adjusted against the terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 3,48,553/-payable at his demise, and thus, having regard to the extent of liability of the family and the receipt of Rs. 3352/- as family pension per month, the decision to decline compassionate appointment had been rightly taken by the Bank. Mr. Sharma has also argued that having regard to the fact that at the time of death of the father of the respondent/writ petitioner there were three adult male members in the family, it was a factor validly taken note of by the Bank in rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. Mr. Sharma has also argued that having regard to the fact that at the time of death of the father of the respondent/writ petitioner there were three adult male members in the family, it was a factor validly taken note of by the Bank in rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. According to him, the decision of the Bank being based on relevant considerations, as contemplated by the scheme for compassionate appointment, no interference therewith ought to have been made in exercise of the power of judicial review. To reinforce his contentions, Mr. Sharma placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209 : 2011 Lab IC 1848 ; State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 : AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 414 and Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 384 : 2008 Lab IC 3580 . 7. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has insisted that as the impugned judgment and order was based on an appropriate analysis of facts and the law pertaining to compassionate appointment, no interference in this intra court appeal is called for. He urged that with the adjustment of the terminal benefits against the loan taken by the father of the respondent/writ petitioner, family was, in fact, left with no amount in essence to fall back upon for sustenance. He maintained that the amount of family pension Rs. 3352/- per month besides being a pittance, could not have been taken to be a factor to deny compassionate appointment. As admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner was eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme of the Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge, on a valid consideration of all relevant factors, had rightly directed reconsideration of his case therefor. Learned senior counsel, to buttress his arguments, placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 Lab IC 1900 and Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 289 . 8. We have examined the pleadings of the parties and have applied ourselves to the arguments advanced. 9. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 Lab IC 1900 and Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 289 . 8. We have examined the pleadings of the parties and have applied ourselves to the arguments advanced. 9. To start with, it is no longer res integra that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and there is no right in law to claim the same. It is a benefit based on compassion so as to enable the family in distress, due to the sudden demise of its bread earner, to tide over the immediate crisis that had befallen it. Such appointments are guided by the schemes formulated by the establishments that provide the same, and any request therefor, has to be essentially examined within the framework thereof. 10. Admittedly, the scheme of the Bank for compassionate appointment did recite the object therefor to enable the family in distress to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of its bread earner. It mentioned that mere death of an employee in harness would not entitle his family to such a livelihood, and that, compassionate appointment would be accorded only if the bank was satisfied that the financial condition of the family was such that but for the same, it would not be able to meet the crisis. To ascertain the financial condition of the family under the scheme, the following determinants had been prescribed:- "(a) Family Pension. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank of its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LIC policies and other Investments of the deceased employee. (f) Income for family from other sources. (g) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any." 11. Noticeably, these factors tally with those set out in the reply of the appellants. The minutes of the proceedings relating to the consideration of the request for compassionate appointment to the respondent/writ petitioner (Annexure-R/1 to the reply) discloses that the following factors, in specific terms, were considered : "1. total monthly income of the family -Rs. 3351 per month by way of family pension. 2. The family was living in their own house constructed out of the bank loan. 3. total monthly income of the family -Rs. 3351 per month by way of family pension. 2. The family was living in their own house constructed out of the bank loan. 3. Three sons of the deceased employee were aged 26 years, 23 years and 18 years and are grown up and can earn some financial support for the family." 12. On a consideration of the above as well as the outside liabilities of the family, which was ascertained to be Rs. 63,503/- the request was declined. Vis-a-vis the plea of recommendation, as asserted by the respondent/writ petitioner, the relevant document also annexed to the reply, indicates that the concerned authority had only forwarded the respondent's/writ petitioner's application for consideration thereof. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (2008 Lab IC 3580) (supra), had reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment and is provided only to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, it faces on the death of its bread earner. In State Bank of India & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 414) (supra), not only it was emphasised by their Lordships of the Apex Court that an application for compassionate appointment has to be considered within the parameters of the scheme pertaining thereto, it was underlined that the entitlement therefor has to be decided by the competent authority, and normally, no interference therewith by the Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, ought to be made. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (2011 Lab IC 1848) (supra) has held that compassionate employment ought not to be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employees' family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. Apart from the unassailable propositions laid down by these pronouncements, it is apparent that the issue of compassionate appointment has to be assuredly examined in the facts of each case, without however, being oblivious of the eventual purpose thereof. Though their Lordships of the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. Apart from the unassailable propositions laid down by these pronouncements, it is apparent that the issue of compassionate appointment has to be assuredly examined in the facts of each case, without however, being oblivious of the eventual purpose thereof. Though their Lordships of the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. (2000 Lab IC 1900) (supra), did enunciate that the Family Benefit Scheme could not in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment, and further observed in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) that a scheme of compassionate appointment is to be construed to be in addition to the entitlements admissible to the legal representatives of deceased employee, there is no marked departure from the basic imperatives recognised in law and affirmed by a plethora of decisions that, it (compassionate appointment) cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and that, the entitlement therefor has to be adjudged on the basis of the attendant facts and circumstances bearing on the financial condition of the family immediately at the death of its bread earner. 14. Having regard to the pleaded stand of the appellants, the scheme for compassionate appointment and the factors taken note of while rejecting the respondent's/writ petitioner's request therefor, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge had erred in issuing a direction to the Bank for reconsideration of his case therefor. This was moreso after three years of the death of the father of the respondent/writ petitioner. The factors taken note of by the Bank in rejecting respondent's/writ petitioner's request for compassionate appointment, to reiterate, are as prescribed by the scheme and can, by no means, be discarded as irrelevant. The view taken by the Bank is a plausible one and having regard to the thriving purpose of compassionate appointment, we are of the unhesitant opinion that no interference therewith in exercise of the power of judicial review is warranted. 15. The appeal is thus allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The stay application stands disposed of.Appeal allowed. *******