JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J - This writ petition is against the order passed by the authority dated 19.4.2005 by which claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been refused. 2. Brief facts of the case as per pleadings made in the writ petition is that husband of the petitioner while working at Sundergarh branch of State Bank of India died at the age of 39 years on 28.5.2001 leaving behind his wife, present petitioner, and two daughters having 13 and 9 years of age respectively and mother aged about 58 years at the time of the writ petition was filed. After death of husband amount of gratuity, provident fund and other terminal benefits has been released out of which substantial amount was spent upon payment of loan which was taken by the deceased - husband of the petitioner and rest of the amount was spent in Sudhikriya of her late husband, hence only sources of income of the petitioner is family pension which she is getting about Rs. 1832/- per month. Elder daughter aged 17 years of age was studying in Class-XII and younger daughter aged 13 years of age was studying in Class-VII at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sundargarh, residing in a rented house, it is difficult state of financial hardship for the family of the deceased-employee to have sufficient means of livelihood, hence she made an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme of the opposite party-Bank but same was considered but rejected vide communication dated 19.4.2005 indicating therein that the case of the petitioner does not satisfy the laid down norms regarding family in penury without any livelihood. Petitioner after receiving the communication dated 19.4.2005 which was without any reason, again represented before the authority for reconsideration of her case but again the same was rejected as has been communicated vide communication dated 4.6.2005, against the said decision this writ petition. 3. Petitioner after receiving the communication dated 19.4.2005 which was without any reason, again represented before the authority for reconsideration of her case but again the same was rejected as has been communicated vide communication dated 4.6.2005, against the said decision this writ petition. 3. Petitioner has challenged decision of the authority on the ground: (i) Terminal benefit which has been paid to the petitioner after death of her husband cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the claim for appointment on compassionate ground because of the reason that the said terminal benefit has been paid under the provision of the statute and according to the entitlement, since appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided under a scheme which provides to provide employment on the ground of death of bread earner in harness so that the dependants of the deceased-employee may be given immediate relief. (ii) While deciding the case of the petitioner authorities are not taken into consideration the nature of responsibility since deceased-employee has left the world leaving behind two young daughters and mother. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Kanti Srivastava Vs. State Bank of India and Others, (2003) 2 AWC 1101 : (2003) 97 FLR 245 . 5. Opposite party-Bank has appeared and filed counter affidavit wherein stand has been taken that appointment on compassionate ground is under a scheme floated by the State Bank of India wherein main consideration for considering application for providing appointment on compassionate ground to dependent of deceased-employee. Certain factors are to be taken into consideration for determining the financial conditions of the petitioner which is being quoted herein below. (i) Family pension. (ii) Gratuity amount received. (iii) Employee's/Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (iv) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (v) Proceeds of LIC policies and other investments of the deceased employee. (vi) Income of family from other sources. (vii) Income of other family members from employment or other sources. (viii) Size of the family and verifiable liabilities, if any. 6. Accordingly, stand has been taken that considering the factors as indicated hereinabove claim of the petitioner has been considered but it was found by the competent authority that petitioner has been disbursed a sum of Rs. (vii) Income of other family members from employment or other sources. (viii) Size of the family and verifiable liabilities, if any. 6. Accordingly, stand has been taken that considering the factors as indicated hereinabove claim of the petitioner has been considered but it was found by the competent authority that petitioner has been disbursed a sum of Rs. 7,15,860.31 on the basis of the particulars submitted by her, she has received gratuity, provident fund and other terminal benefits and also taken into consideration family pension which the petitioner is getting @ Rs. 1823/- per month, hence case of the petitioner was not found to be in the guideline laid down by the Bank in the scheme. 7. It has been contended that appointment on compassionate ground is not a right rather it is purely on compassion to be given under a scheme and as such conditions laid down in the scheme is foremost to be considered before providing appointment on compassionate ground. In this pretext, case of the petitioner has been considered in view of the criteria laid down in the scheme and the case of the petitioner was not found to be under norms of the scheme, hence a conscious decision has been taken by the authority and accordingly claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank has relied upon judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 112 FLR 1037 : (2007) 3 JT 35 : (2007) 2 LLJ 385 : (2007) 146 PLR 754 : (2007) 2 SCALE 397 : (2007) 9 SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC(L&S) 578 : (2007) 2 SCR 101 : (2007) 3 SLJ 1 : (2007) 1 UJ 247 : (2007) AIRSCW 6861 : (2007) 7 Supreme 274 . 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. The issue comes for consideration before this Court is as to whether rejection of claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by the opposite party-Bank is justified or not. 10. In order to assess this, fact of the case needs to be referred. Husband of the petitioner who was permanent employee of the Bank having been appointed and while working at Sundargarh Branch of the State Bank of India has died at the age of 39 years on 28.5.2001. 10. In order to assess this, fact of the case needs to be referred. Husband of the petitioner who was permanent employee of the Bank having been appointed and while working at Sundargarh Branch of the State Bank of India has died at the age of 39 years on 28.5.2001. Wife of the deceased-employee i.e. the petitioner herein, has made application in terms of the scheme floated by the State Bank of India for providing appointment on compassionate ground. So many schemes have been floated by the Bank, scheme on the basis of which petitioner made application was floated on 8.4.2003, revised subsequently vide Circular as contained in Letter No. CIRDO/P/HRD/01/2003-2004 provided under the heading "financial condition of the family" for determining claim of dependants of deceased-employee by which the following parameter has been laid down. "Appointment in the public service are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependants of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family i.e. therefore is an important criterion for deciding the proposals for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account for determining the financial condition of the family: (i) Family pension. (ii) Gratuity amount received. (iii) Employee's/Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (iv) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (v) Proceeds of LIC policies and other investments of the deceased employee. (vi) Income of family from other sources. (vii) Income of other family members from employment or other sources. (viii) Size of the family and verifiable liabilities, if any. 11. When the application has been filed by the petitioner case of the petitioner has been considered on the basis of the provision as given in the guideline as indicated hereinabove, Bank after considering the fact that the petitioner has been given by way of terminal benefits a sum of Rs. 7,15,860.31 and also getting family pension to the tune of Rs. 1832/- per month accordingly decision was taken that petitioner has not satisfied the laid down norms of family in penury without any means of livelihood. In the pretext, action of the opposite party is to be assessed. 12. 7,15,860.31 and also getting family pension to the tune of Rs. 1832/- per month accordingly decision was taken that petitioner has not satisfied the laid down norms of family in penury without any means of livelihood. In the pretext, action of the opposite party is to be assessed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Kanti Srivastava vs. State Bank of India and others (supra). On its perusal it is evident that the order has been quashed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in absence of any reason of rejecting the claim of the petitioner by making observation that order without any reason cannot be said to be order in accordance with law because of the reason that the competent authority in that case has passed order by passing order in one word "approved" but it has not been discussed by the authority in that case what led him to come to the conclusion to approve the decision on the recommendation. If the facts of the case is compared with the fact of this case, the impugned order has been passed by making reference that the petitioner has not satisfied the laid down norms regarding family being in penury without any means of livelihood and accordingly it was rejected. Thus specific reason has been given by the competent authority in this case not once but twice by assigning reason that the family of the deceased-employee is not coming under the category of the laid down norms regarding family being in penury without any means of livelihood and this decision on account of the fact that the petitioner was paid sum of Rs. 7,15,860.31 by way of terminal benefits and she is also getting at the relevant time family pension to the tune of Rs. 1832/- per month. In this pretext, judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 13. There is no dispute that appointment on compassionate ground is to be given in view of a scheme to be formulated by the employer containing certain conditions. Accordingly, opposite party-Bank has also floated a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground laying down certain criteria as referred being quoted hereinabove. 13. There is no dispute that appointment on compassionate ground is to be given in view of a scheme to be formulated by the employer containing certain conditions. Accordingly, opposite party-Bank has also floated a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground laying down certain criteria as referred being quoted hereinabove. It is settled that appointment is to be given and to be considered on the basis of the laid down criteria in the scheme and there cannot be any deviation. Opposite party-Bank has formulated a scheme which is on the basis of so many judgments pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 68 FLR 1191 : (1994) 3 JT 525 : (1994) 2 SCALE 834 : (1994) 4 SCC 138 : (1994) 3 SCR 893 : (1995) 1 SLJ 229 : (1994) 2 UJ 322 their Lordships has been pleased to observe which is being quoted below: "As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus 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. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus 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. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible." Same view has been reiterated in the judgment having been relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-Bank in the case of State Bank of India vs. Aspal Kaur (supra) wherein same situation the High Court after considering the financial viability of the dependants of the deceased-employee has passed order directing the Bank to provide appointment on compassionate ground but same has not been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, AIR 1994 SC 2148 : (1994) 68 FLR 791 : (1994) 2 JT 183 : (1994) 2 LLJ 173 : (1994) 1 SCALE 748 : (1994) 2 SCC 718 : (1994) 2 SCR 163 : (1994) 1 UJ 592 : (1994) WritLR 492 wherein it has been held that courts cannot order appointment on compassionate grounds dehors the provisions of statutory regulations and instructions. Further after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (D and PB) and Others Vs. Further after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (D and PB) and Others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and Another, (2004) 3 LLJ 1136 : (2004) 7 SCALE 155 : (2004) 7 SCC 271 : (2004) SCC(L&S) 943 wherein it was held that criteria of penury is to be applied only in case of condition of the petitioner who is without any means of livelihood and living hand to mouth that compassionate appointment was required to be accorded. 14. Here in this case also similar situation was with the petitioner at the time when claim of her compassionate appointment was rejected the petitioner was not without any means of livelihood and was not living hand to mouth rather with means of livelihood. Hence ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Aspal Kaur (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Shashank Goswami and Another, AIR 2012 SC 2294 : (2012) 5 SCALE 740 : (2012) 11 SCC 307 : (2013) 1 SCC(L&S) 51 : (2012) 3 SLJ 218 : (2012) AIRSCW 3257 : (2012) 4 Supreme 94 it has been held at paragraphs 9, 10 and 13 which is being quoted hereinbelow for ready reference. "9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 13. In Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2008) 117 FLR 565 : (2008) 4 JT 512 : (2008) 4 SCALE 637 : (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 1077 : (2008) 3 SLJ 433, this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependant 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." 15. Thus there is no dispute about the fact that claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on premise that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee which is to be considered on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Thus there is no dispute about the fact that claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on premise that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee which is to be considered on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be as a matter of right otherwise same will be against touchstone of Article 14 of 16 of the Constitution of India since as per the settled rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be made another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid recruitment taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. Hon'ble Apex Court after placing reliance of the judgment in the case of Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2008) 117 FLR 565 : (2008) 4 JT 512 : (2008) 4 SCALE 637 : (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 1077 : (2008) 3 SLJ 433 has been pleased to observe that dependant of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/retiral benefits above the ceiling limit since specific criteria has been laid down in the scheme governing skill of consideration for appointment on compassionate ground and there cannot not be any deviation from the terms and conditions of the scheme and if the scheme laid down that if the family of the deceased employee receives terminal/retiral benefits above the ceiling limit dependants of the family would not be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. 16. Applying the said ratio and considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has been paid amount of Rs. 7,15,860.31 by way of terminal benefits and was getting family pension @ Rs. 1832/- per month and considering the criteria laid down in the scheme by the opposite party-Bank as quoted hereinabove and the authorities have found that the petitioner is not coming under the criteria of penury without any means of livelihood, hence rejected the claim. 17. 7,15,860.31 by way of terminal benefits and was getting family pension @ Rs. 1832/- per month and considering the criteria laid down in the scheme by the opposite party-Bank as quoted hereinabove and the authorities have found that the petitioner is not coming under the criteria of penury without any means of livelihood, hence rejected the claim. 17. In the light of the foregoing reasons and in the light of the pronouncement of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in the decision taken by the authority and it can also not to be said that there is no reason in the order since specific reason has been assigned for non-fulfilling of the scheme regarding family being in penury without any means of livelihood. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed