ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner's father died in harness on 13th January, 1999 while working on the post of Armed Guard under Respondent no. 4, Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Charhi Branch, Hazaribag. The claim for compassionate appointment was made by the widow for the petitioner son and was forwarded to the Chief Manager (Personnel), United Bank of India (Annexure-3 Series). It shows that the petitioner's date of birth is 23rd February, 1976 and he was Intermediate in Science at the relevant point of time. The format in which the application was filled up as also being forwarded are enclosed to Annexure-3 Series. 3. The respondents in the first counter affidavit have, in substance, stated that the mother of the petitioner, in fact, submitted application before the Bank Authorities upon which a lump sum financial assistance of Rs. 1,50,000/- was accorded to her, which she did not accept. The claim for compassionate appointment made through the instant writ petition preferred in 2006 is delayed one after the employee died in 1999. 1988's scheme of death in harness was existence and in that scheme also for grant of compassionate appointment, it was discretion of the Bank to consider the claim for compassionate appointment. As a matter of fact, one of the sons of the deceased was also in Military service as per entries made in the format application. It was nowhere stated that he had separated from the family of the deceased. Subsequently, the Scheme of 1988 was modified in November 2000, whereunder the grant of compassionate appointment was converted into grant of one time financial assistance. Therefore, under the new scheme compassionate appointment was substituted by offer of financial assistance. 4. The respondents were earlier asked to bring on record the old scheme and new scheme for compassionate appointment which has been filed through counter affidavit dated 3rd August, 2012. It is apparent from 1988 scheme which is 'died in harness scheme' of United Bank of India notified on 3rd December, 1988 that compassionate appointment would be considered in cases of death in harness of an employee. The definition Clause shows that the widow, son or daughter etc. are in the category of dependents. The eligibility conditions have also been prescribed thereunder which provides minimum age of 18 years. Certain other conditions have also been prescribed thereunder. The definition Clause shows that the widow, son or daughter etc. are in the category of dependents. The eligibility conditions have also been prescribed thereunder which provides minimum age of 18 years. Certain other conditions have also been prescribed thereunder. This has been replaced by the scheme notified on 1st November, 2000, whereunder one time lump sum financial aid to the widow of the deceased in lieu of employment or appointment in clerical and subordinate cadre on the death of the employee is provided. This scheme also prescribes for several eligibility qualification. Another scheme of 13th November, 2004 has also been enclosed as Annexure-C, which again relate to payment of Exgratia Lump sum in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's case should not have been rejected after offering lump sum assistance as it was required to be considered under the scheme in vogue. He has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015 (3) JBCJ 48 S.C. equivalent to 2015 (7) SCC 412 , to submit that in a similar case relating to death of employee in a Bank in October, 1998 when the claim was rejected and a new scheme had come into force in 2005 providing for ex gratia payment, the Apex court held that the claim of the said person was required to be reconsidered on the basis of Dying in Harness Scheme of 1993, then in force. 6. Counsel for the Respondent-Bank has defended the stand of the petitioner on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit which have been referred to hereinabove as well. It is submitted that the petitioner's case can only be considered in view of new scheme. Counsel for the Respondent-Bank refers to the scheme of 1st November, 2000, whereunder only widow of the deceased employee would be offered appointment in the initial stage of grade applicable. He submits by relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh reported in AIR 2013 SC 3365 that it has been held therein that the claim for compassionate appointment is to be considered as per the scheme in force. He submits by relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh reported in AIR 2013 SC 3365 that it has been held therein that the claim for compassionate appointment is to be considered as per the scheme in force. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not have any legal right to claim compassionate appointment, more so when the scheme has been modified thereafter and the writ petition has been filed in 2006. 7. I have considered the submission of the parties in the light of the relevant materials on record. It is evident that the death of the petitioner's father occurred on 13th January, 1999 and at the relevant point of time Dying in Harness Scheme 1988 was in force, which permitted consideration of claim for compassionate appointment of dependent of such employee like the widow, son etc. The claim for compassionate appointment was forwarded by the concerned Branch also before any new scheme came into force. However the Bank proceeded to offer lump sum financial assistance being guided by the modified circular of November, 2000. Petitioner's mother failed to accept the offer and has thereafter approached this Court in 2006. 8. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, it appears that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered in terms of scheme of 1988 relying upon the ratio rendered by Apex court in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015 (3) JBCJ 48 S.C., where also similar considerations were involved and the employee had died in October, 1998 when Dying in Harness Scheme dated 8th May 1993 was in force. The relevant paras 3 and 17 of the report are quoted hereunder for better appreciation: “Para 3 : For convenience, Civil Appeal No. 260/2008 is taken as a lead case. Brief facts which led to the filing of the appeal are as follows: Respondent applied to the appellant-bank on 30.11.1998 claiming to be considered for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, a clerk in the appellant-bank who while on duty died on 10.10.1998. Respondent had applied for the compassionate appointment on account of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' with effect from 8.05.1993 then in vogue in the appellant-bank. Respondent had applied for the compassionate appointment on account of 'Dying in Harness Scheme' with effect from 8.05.1993 then in vogue in the appellant-bank. The bank vide its communication dated 30.06.1999 rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the respondent's family financial position does not show any indigent circumstances warranting to provide employment on compassionate ground. The respondent gave his representation to the General Manager of the appellant-bank and several other representations for reconsideration of his claim; but nothing fruitful happened in consideration of respondent's claim for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, respondent filed O.P. No. 21630/2002 (Y) before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam seeking to quash the Ext. P4 and direction to the appellant-bank to appoint him as per 'Dying in Harness Scheme' then in force in the appellant-bank. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2003 allowed the Original Petition of the respondent herein and quashed Ext. P4 and directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for appointment in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. Appellant-bank assailed the decision of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No. 1313/2003(B) and the Division Bench upholding the order of the Single Judge dismissed the writ appeal. The appellant-bank has filed this appeal assailing the correctness of the above order. Para 17: Considering the scope of the Scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme 1993' then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference.” 9. This Court is conscious of the legal position that in matters of construction of social welfare legislation or scheme, the interpretation which advances the course of justice should be adopted. Considering the ratio laid down by apex court in the latest judgment relied upon by the petitioner it would only be proper that the claim of the petitioner be considered for compassionate appointment under the scheme of 1988 which was applicable at the time of death of employee within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove. Petition allowed.