JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this writ petition is the order, dated 29th May, 2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (for short, the Tribunal), in Original Application No.836/HP/2006, titled Ram Kishore vs. Union of India and others, whereby the Original Application filed by the Applicant (respondent herein) was allowed with a command to the original respondents (writ petitioners herein) to consider the case of the original applicant (writ respondent herein), for grant of compassionate appointment, (for short, the impugned order). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners (original respondents before the Tribunal) filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Facts of the case, as pleaded in the Original Application, are that the father of the writ respondent was working as Postman, who died on 5.2.2003, while in service. The writ respondent applied for grant of employment on compassionate ground, as per the policy occupying the field. The said request of the writ respondent was considered by the Circle Selection Committee in its meeting held on 18th May, 2004 and the said Committee, after examining the case of the petitioner, was of the opinion that the family of the deceased employee was not living in indigent circumstances and accordingly, the case of the writ respondent was rejected, constraining him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing the Original Application. 5. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order, allowed the Original Application. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 5 of the impugned order hereunder: “The OA is therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the next meeting and in case the case comes under the deserving category further action for issue of offer of appointment be taken. In case the applicant is not found within the deserving category in the next meeting, the same drill be repeated in the next meeting to ascertain the merit of the applicant under the existing norms for compassionate appointment. The decision arrived at be communicated to the applicant.” 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India argued that the family of the deceased employee had already received the terminal benefits and was also getting family pension. The decision arrived at be communicated to the applicant.” 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India argued that the family of the deceased employee had already received the terminal benefits and was also getting family pension. It was also submitted that, In addition to it, the family of the writ respondent was having additional income from the landed property. It was, therefore, submitted that the Circle Committee had rightly rejected the case of the writ respondent and accordingly prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. Before we deal with the above submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, we may refer to the aim and object behind making the Scheme for providing employment on compassionate ground. 8. It is well settled principle of service jurisprudence that every appointment against a public post must be made strictly in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as per the Rules occupying the field. Any selection/appointment made de hors the Rules, is illegal. However, an exception has been carved out for providing employment on compassionate ground. The aim and object of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to provide help to the family/dependants of an employee, who dies in harness, in tiding over the crisis which they suddenly met on the death of the bread-earner of the family. The other object of promulgating such a scheme is to save the dependants of the deceased-employee from social evils and to come to their rescue in the hour of need, particularly, to those families which, on the death of their breadwinner, fall on the earth and lose everything. 9. The Central Government and the State Governments, in order to achieve the above purpose, have made Rules/Regulations/Policies/Schemes for making appointment on compassionate ground. The Corporations and the Semi Government Departments, including Banks etc., have either adopted those Schemes or have framed their own Schemes. 10. In order to provide employment assistance on compassionate ground, the Central Government has framed a Scheme for making appointments on compassionate ground, which was notified vide Office Memorandum dated 9th October, 1998, annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-2, (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). 11. Clause 5 of the Scheme deals with the eligibility. It is apt to reproduce the said clause hereunder: “5. 11. Clause 5 of the Scheme deals with the eligibility. It is apt to reproduce the said clause hereunder: “5. ELIGIBILITY (a) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and (b) …………………………………” 12. A reference may also be made to Clause 16 of the Scheme, hereunder: “16. GENERAL (a) ………. ……………… ……… (b) ………. ……………… ……… (c) The Scheme of compassionate appointments was conceived as far back as 1958. Since then a number of welfare measures have been introduced by the Government which have made a significant difference in the financial position of the families of the Government servants dying in harness/retired on medical grounds. An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the Government servant has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc.” 13. Thus, the Scheme itself envisages that the Government is under obligation not to reject the application for employment on compassionate ground summarily and in view of the fact that the family of the deceased-employee had received benefits under various welfare schemes. The Scheme also postulates that a balanced and objective examination of the financial condition of the family is required. It is also clear from the perusal of the Scheme, Annexure P-2, that it nowhere prescribed any maximum income slab for adjudging the eligibility of a person for employment on compassionate ground, except that a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities etc., as discussed above. 14. 14. The main ground urged before us for denying the employment assistance to the writ respondent was that since the family of the deceased employee had already received the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.3,29,990/-, was getting family pension amounting to Rs.3429/- per month and also having yearly income to the tune of Rs.6600/- from the landed property, therefore, the employment on compassionate ground has rightly not been granted to the writ respondent. 15. From a perusal of the Scheme supra (Annexure P-2), it is manifestly clear that no maximum income slab is provided in the said Scheme, which can be made the basis for rejecting a claim for employment assistance on compassionate ground. 16. This Court in the latest decision, dated 6th October, 2015, passed in CWP No.9094 of 2013, titled Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, and other connected matters, while dealing with the issue of compassionate appointment, after referring to various decisions of the Apex Court, has held that grant of terminal benefits and income from family pension cannot be equated with the employment assistance on compassionate ground. It has further been held that once there is no maximum income slab provided in the Scheme, the claim of the applicant cannot be rejected on that score. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 46 to 55 of the said decision hereunder: “46. Clause 10(c) of the Policy mandates that while making appointment on compassionate ground, the competent Authority has to keep in mind the benefits received by the family on account of ad hoc ex-gratia grant, improved family pension and death gratuity. Therefore, we may place on record at the outset that no maximum income ceiling has been prescribed in the Policy. Only what has been prescribed is that the competent Authority has to keep in mind the benefits received by the family after the death of the employee, as detailed above. 47. The aim and object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis which the family has met on the death of its breadwinner. 47. The aim and object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis which the family has met on the death of its breadwinner. Though, appointment on compassionate ground is inimical to the right of equality guaranteed under the Constitution, however, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the concept of granting appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule, which concept has been evolved in the interest of justice, by way of Policy framed in this regard by the employer. The object sought to be achieved by making such an exception is to provide immediate assistance to the destitute family, which comes to the level of zero after the death of its breadearner. Thus, we are of the considered view that the amount of family pension and other retiral benefits cannot be equated with the employment assistance on compassionate ground. 48. While reaching at this conclusion, we are supported by the decision of the Apex Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 289, wherein it was held that scheme for providing employment assistance on compassionate ground was over and above the service benefits received by the family of an employee after his death. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the said decision hereunder: “6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules……………………………..”. 49. The Apex Court in A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad & Ors. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules……………………………..”. 49. The Apex Court in A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad & Ors. vs. Sarvarunnisa Begum, 2008 AIR SCW 1946, while discussing the aim and object of granting compassionate appointment, has held that the widow, who was paid additional monetary benefits for not claiming appointment, was not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said decision hereunder: “3. This Court time and again has held that the compassionate appointment would be given to the dependent of the deceased who died in harness to get over the difficulties on the death of the bread- earner. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , this Court has held as under: "The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest post in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Classes III and IV, is legally impermissible." 4. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Classes III and IV, is legally impermissible." 4. In the present case, the additional monetary benefit has been given to the widow apart from the benefits available to the widow after the death of her husband to get over the financial constraints on account of sudden death of her husband and, thus, as a matter of right, she was not entitled to claim the compassionate appointment and that too when it had not been brought to the notice of the Court that any vacancy was available where the respondent could have been accommodated by giving her a compassionate appointment. That apart, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed an error in modifying the direction of the Single Judge by directing the Corporation to appoint the respondent when no appeal was preferred by the respondent challenging order of the Single Judge.” 50. Coming to the Policy in hand, there is nothing on the record to show that the writ respondents have ever made a provision for additional monetary benefit, as a substitute to the employment assistance on compassionate ground, except the terminal benefits to which the family of the deceased-employee is otherwise entitled to. 51. The Apex Court in its latest decision in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, 2015 AIR SCW 3212, while relying upon its earlier decision in Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (supra), has restated the similar position, and held that grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits, cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance on compassionate ground. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said decision hereunder: “15. Insofar as the contention of the appellantbank that since the respondent's family is getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, if the applicant is a minor, the bank would keep the appointment open till the minor attains the majority. 16. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., 2000 6 SCC 493 , while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:- "13. .But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s case, High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the respondents' family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.” Emphasis applied. 52. The Clauses contained in the Policy in hand are similar to the Scheme, which was the subject matter before the Apex Court in Canara Bank’s case (supra). 52. The Clauses contained in the Policy in hand are similar to the Scheme, which was the subject matter before the Apex Court in Canara Bank’s case (supra). Therefore, the mandate of the said judgment of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the cases in hand. 53. From the facts of the cases in hand, another moot question, which arises for consideration, is – Whether instructions contained in letters/communications, made by one Department of the Government to another, can be said to be amendment in the Policy? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 54. In order to show that the maximum income ceiling was prescribed by the competent Authority, the respondents have relied upon the letter, dated 1st November, 2008, written by the Secretary (PW) to the Government of H.P., to the Engineer-in-Chief, HP PWD, referred to above, wherein it was mentioned that the income ceiling fixed by the Finance Department, for a family of four members, was Rs.1.00 lac. A perusal of this letter shows that it has been mentioned therein that “the Income Criteria fixed by the Finance Department takes into consideration maximum family income ceiling fixed by the finance Deptt. for a family of 4 members as Rs.1.00 lac.” It is nowhere mentioned in the said letter that the income ceiling was fixed by the competent Authority by making amendment in the Policy. Moreover, the said amendment, if any, has not been placed on record and has not seen the light of the day. Therefore, the letters/communications issued by a Department to another Department cannot be said to be amendment in the Policy unless the said amendment has got the approval of the competent Authority i.e. the Cabinet. 55. Having regard to the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the action of the respondents of denying employment assistance to the dependant of a deceased employee by taking into account the family pension and other terminal benefits is not tenable in the eyes of law……………...” 17. Applying the tests to the instant case, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, supra, and the same are repelled being devoid of any force. 18. The Tribunal has rightly discussed the facts and the law applicable, and thus, the impugned order is legally correct, needs no interference. 19. Applying the tests to the instant case, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, supra, and the same are repelled being devoid of any force. 18. The Tribunal has rightly discussed the facts and the law applicable, and thus, the impugned order is legally correct, needs no interference. 19. Having said so, the writ petition merits to be dismissed and the same is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld. Writ Petitioners are directed to comply with the directions contained in the impugned order within three months from today.