JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, having been informed of denial for appointment on compassionate ground by the Bank of Baroda, (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent', for short), has approached this Court with a prayer to quash and set aside the letter and communication dated 24.04.2001 and to direct the respondent-Bank to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in view of his application dated 12th October, 2002. 2. Briefly, the skeletal facts indispensable for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application needs to be first noticed. Shri Om Prakash, father of the petitioner, died on 12th June, 1997, while working as Peon in the Branch Office, Baloda, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) of the respondent-Bank leaving behind the widow, two minor sons and a daughter as his dependents. The respondent-Bank initiated proceedings vide communication dated 12/13th August, 1997, to facilitate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee and called for the necessary information from the Branch Office including the financial position of the family. 3. Having considered the case of the petitioner, it was informed that the request for compassionate appointment of the petitioner-Jitendra Kumar, cannot be acceded to as per Revised Scheme of the respondent-Bank. 4. However, in the event of attaining the age of majority of 18 years, the case could be reconsidered maintaining the lien, if so desired, and for that purpose, an application with a request to that effect may be obtained from widow of the deceased employee, namely, Smt. Vimla Devi and the directions were complied with. The petitioner after having attained the age of majority on 3rd November, 2000, again staked his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds and addressed an application dated 3rd November, 2000. However, the claim has been declined vide communication 24th April 2001 (Annexure-11) in view of Revised Scheme of the respondent-Bank with reference to the appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank again submitted the case of the petitioner for reconsideration under the new Scheme of the respondent-Bank revised on 18th August, 1998, wherein a relaxation was provided for acquiring the minimum qualifications within a period of four years of the death of the employee to enable the dependent to qualify in terms of age and/or qualifications. 6. 6. The petitioner was aged 14 years and 9 months on the date when his father expired i.e. on 12th June, 1997, and therefore, the relaxation in his case, was applicable uptill 11th June, 2000. The petitioner being eligible for appointment to the post of LDC, requested for his appointment in order to ensure survival of the family and to tide over the financial crisis, but the respondent-Bank has not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner, and hence, he approached this Court. 7. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Bank has filed its counter affidavit pleading that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment owing to the fact that he was aged 14 years and 9 months at the relevant point of time, and therefore, his case could not be considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the Revised Scheme as would be evident from a bare perusal of the letter/communication dated ⅗th March, 1999 (Annexure-R/1). The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank would further submit that vide communication dated 24th April, 2001 (Annexure-11), it was specifically informed that the petitioner was not covered within the parameters of the Revised Scheme for recruitment/financial relief to the dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds. The claim of the petitioner has been denied in view of the fact the eligibility criteria under the Scheme contemplates appointment of a dependent of deceased employee on compassionate grounds if the net expected income of the family member does not exceed 60% of the total salary of the deceased employee. 8. In the instant case at hand, last drawn salary of Late Shri Om Prakash was Rs. 4970/- and according to the calculation, adding on the amount of Provident Fund and Gratuity after deducting loan recovery, the net amount determined was Rs. 74,941/-(Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty One only) with interest @ 11% p.a. i.e., Rs. 687/- added to the amount of pension being Rs. 2,575/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only). Thus, the total monthly income, in the instant case at hand, totaled up to Rs. 3,262/- (Rupees Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Two only) per month; being more than 60% of the expected income of the family members of Late Shri Om Prakash whereas 60% of the last drawn salary is Rs. 2,575/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only). Thus, the total monthly income, in the instant case at hand, totaled up to Rs. 3,262/- (Rupees Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Two only) per month; being more than 60% of the expected income of the family members of Late Shri Om Prakash whereas 60% of the last drawn salary is Rs. 2,982/- (Rupees Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Two only) and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has rightly been declined and the action of the respondent-Bank cannot be faulted. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts insistently argued that since the family was in financial crisis and the petitioner was only member, who attained the majority after the death of his father, who died while in service of the respondent-Bank; the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground; in order to tide over the family from the financial crisis. The learned counsel would further submit that the claim for appointment was pending since long while the father of the petitioner died i.e. on 12th June, 1997. The matter ought to have been considered sympathetically while determining the issue of appointment on compassionate grounds in the matter of the applicant/petitioner under the Revised Scheme. Thus, the action of the respondent-Bank is illegal and arbitrary on that count as well. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank reiterating the pleaded facts of the counter-affidavit/reply to the writ application and referring to the various opinions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with reference to appointment on compassionate ground, repelled the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel the Scheme evolved to determine the sustainability of the case for appointment on compassionate ground by fixing a criteria of 60% of the expected salary as compared to the last salary drawn by the deceased employee, as incorporated in the Revised Scheme, is perfectly legal and valid. Moreover, the Scheme for recruitment for providing financial relief to family of the deceased, on compassionate ground, has undergone several revisions in the past in the context of the Government guidelines circulated vide circular dated 18th August, 1998 and 4th December, 1998, respectively. Moreover, the Scheme for recruitment for providing financial relief to family of the deceased, on compassionate ground, has undergone several revisions in the past in the context of the Government guidelines circulated vide circular dated 18th August, 1998 and 4th December, 1998, respectively. Referring to the circular dated 10th March, 2004, the learned counsel emphasised that the Scheme is applicable even to all the pending requests for appointment on compassionate ground. Appointments on compassionate grounds are to be dealt within the provisions of the new Scheme in view of the specific stipulation therein. In the case of Umesh Nagpal v. State of Haryana;, 1994(4) SCC 138 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that the whole object of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tide over the financial crisis on account of sudden demise of the sole bread-winner of the family. Their Lordships further held that as a rule, appointment in public service is to be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any of the procedures or relax the qualification laid down by the Rules for the post except for certain exceptions in favour of the dependents of employees who die in harness, leaving the family in penury position and without any means of livelihood. It is only after the satisfaction of the competent authority after having examined the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only in a situation, but for an employment on compassionate ground, the family will not be able to tide over the financial crisis, a job is to be offered to eligible member of the family. The view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It is trite law that an employment in Government/Public Sector should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. Such a procedure ensures the compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. An appointment should be made to a public office on the basis of competitive merits. It is trite law that an employment in Government/Public Sector should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. Such a procedure ensures the compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. An appointment should be made to a public office on the basis of competitive merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once it is proved that in spite of death/demise of bread-winner of the family, the family survived and substantial period is over, it will not be advisable to say "Goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interest of several others contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. In the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Shashank Goswami & Anr;, 2012(4) Supreme 1994 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterating the opinion in the case of Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2005) 10 SCC 289 ; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 ; General Manager (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwari, (2004) 7 SCC 271 ; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 ; observed that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The claim is to be considered as a reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden financial crisis occurring in the family due to death of such member who died in harness while in service. Further, appointment on compassionate ground is required to be made in accordance the rules and regulations or the administrative instructions, taking into considerations the financial condition of the family of the dependent. In the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Shashank Goswami & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "10. This Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 289 while dealing with a similar issue i.e. whether payment of terminal/retiral benefits to the family can be taken into consideration, held as under: In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities...... to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased.... and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules...... to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased.... and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules...... Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amount admissible under the Rules. 11. This Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 , placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti Tiwari & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 271 , held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Whereas the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the retrial/terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 12. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 384 , this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependent of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/retiral benefits above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in Govind Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the scheme lays down a criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. 13. In the instant case, office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi issued a Circular dated 19.2.2003 explaining the scope of such appointments. Relevant part of the same reads as under: With a view to bring uniformity in our offices regarding parameters for compassionate appointment of a family member in the case of death of a Government servant in harness, it has been decided that the total income of the family from all sources including terminal benefits after death, excluding G.P.F., should be taken into account. If the resultant computation works out to a figure less than the parameters given below such cases can be considered for compassionate appointment subject to fulfillment of all other conditions. The limits are given below: Group 'B' Rs. Five lakhs Group 'C' Three lakhs Group 'D' Rs. Two lakhs" 13. In order to fortify his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India & Anr. v. Rajkumar reported in, (2010) 11 SCC 661 wherein it has been held that the Scheme had a retrospective effect in operation. 14. Somewhat similar controversy has also been examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sheela Devi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Anr. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3600/2004 vide order judgment dated 29th November, 2011 observing thus: "8. 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 dependents 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. 12. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. In this context we may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan, (2003) 7 SCC 270 wherein this Court observed: (SCC pp. 278-79, para 8): 8....That apart, being ex gratia, no right accrues to/any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the guidelines and policy in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the scheme itself. The line of decisions in relation to vested rights accrued being protected from any subsequent amendments may not be relevant for such a situation and it would be apposite to advert to State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205 . That was a case wherein this Court had to consider the claims of lessees for renewal of their leases or for grant of fresh leases under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The High Court was of the view that it was not open to the State Government to keep the applications filed for lease or renewal for a long time and then dispose them of on the basis of a rule which had come into force later. The High Court was of the view that it was not open to the State Government to keep the applications filed for lease or renewal for a long time and then dispose them of on the basis of a rule which had come into force later. This Court, while reversing such a view taken by the High Court, held that in the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application, despite the delay, if any, involved although it is desirable to dispose of the applications, expeditiously. 15. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 702 which considered the question of grant of liquor vend licences. This Court held that where the applications required processing and verification the policy which should be applicable is the one which is prevalent on the date of grant and not the one which was prevalent when the application was filed. This Court clarified that the exception to the said rule is where a right had already accrued or vested in the applicant, before the change of policy. In this case the employee died in October 2004, the application was made only in June 2005. The application was not even by the Respondent, but by his mother. Therefore, it was necessary to ascertain whether the Respondent really wanted the appointment, whether he possessed the eligibility, and whether any post was available. Within two months of the application, the new Scheme came into force and the old Scheme was abolished. The new Scheme specifically provided that all pending applications will be considered under the new Scheme. Therefore it has to be held that the new Scheme which came into force on 4-8-2005 alone will apply even in respect of pending applications. 21. We therefore allow this appeal in part as follows: (i) The orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside. (ii) The Respondent and/or his family may file a fresh application under the new Scheme, as directed by the Bank in its letter dated 31-1-2006. 21. We therefore allow this appeal in part as follows: (i) The orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside. (ii) The Respondent and/or his family may file a fresh application under the new Scheme, as directed by the Bank in its letter dated 31-1-2006. (iii) The Appellant Bank is directed to process such application under the new Scheme, if and when made, and pay the lump sum ex gratia amount due in terms of that Scheme, to the beneficiaries, within four months of the receipt of the application." 15. The case of the petitioner has been rejected taking into consideration the fact that the family of the deceased is in receipt of more than 60% of salary, last drawn by the deceased employee. In the instant case at hand the family of the deceased has also received terminal benefits including provident fund amount as well as gratuity and is in receipt of monthly pension. 16. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ application preferred on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any substance and merits rejection. 17. Ordered accordingly. 18. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******