JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “29 A. This petition be admitted and allowed. B. By issuing appropriate writ, order and direction, the order dated 6-10-2007 passed by District Education Officer, Sabarkantha District, Himmatnagar rejecting the representation made by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside, further, the respondent-authorities be directed to complete the procedure and formalities for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate appointment in the school of respondents no. 4 and 5 as early as possible, preferably within period of 3 months; and further, the respondents no. 4 and 5 be directed and restrained from giving appointment to any person till the present petitioner is appointed on any suitable post. C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the operation, implementation and execution of the rejected order dated 6-10-2007 passed by DEO, Himmatnagar be stayed. D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondents be restrained from appointing any other person till the present petitioner is appointed on suitable post. E. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondents be directed to complete the formalities and procedure for giving appointment to the petitioner on suitable post under compassionate appointment within a period of 3 months. F. Any other relief that may be deemed just and proper may also be kindly granted.” 2. It appear from the materials on record that the father of the writ applicant was serving as a ‘Assistant Teacher’ under the respondent No. 4 - school. The father passed away on 19th September 2004 while in service. At the time of demise of the father, the father had put in almost twenty nine years of service. 3. The writ applicant being the son preferred an application seeking compassionate appointment. At the time of filing of the application, he was aged twenty four years. The application came to be rejected on the ground that there was no vacant post. Being dissatisfied, he preferred the Special Civil Application No. 16604 of 2007 before this Court. The said writ application came to be disposed of vide order dated 2nd July 2007 in the following terms: “1. Heard learned Advocate, Ms. Maria Dalal for Mr. Yatin Soni, appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Being dissatisfied, he preferred the Special Civil Application No. 16604 of 2007 before this Court. The said writ application came to be disposed of vide order dated 2nd July 2007 in the following terms: “1. Heard learned Advocate, Ms. Maria Dalal for Mr. Yatin Soni, appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Amit Patel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. The grievance of the present petitioner is that application for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner. Though the petitioner is qualified but respondents are not considering the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment against the vacant post. On the contrary, the respondents are making efforts to fill up the vacant post by appointment of surplus teacher or by giving promotion to the peon in the post of clerk. Therefore, present petition is filed. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the respondents are directing to consider the case of petitioner first for compassionate appointment according to service rules and policy prevailing at the relevant time when the concerned employee died and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receiving the copy of this order and thereafter consider to fill up vacant post and communicate the decision to the petitioner. 4. In view of the above observations and directions, present petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. However, in case if ultimate decision is adverse to the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law. Direct service is permitted.” 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court referred to above, fresh decision was taken declining compassionate appointment. Being dissatisfied, the writ applicant has come up with this writ application. 5. On behalf of the respondent No. 4, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed inter-alia stating as under: “3. I say and submit that I am filing the present affidavit-in-reply only with a view to oppose the admission of the present petition and grant of any interim relief in favour of the petitioner and I reserve my right to file the detailed affidavit as and when necessary. 4. I say and submit that I am filing the present affidavit-in-reply only with a view to oppose the admission of the present petition and grant of any interim relief in favour of the petitioner and I reserve my right to file the detailed affidavit as and when necessary. 4. I say and submit that none of the fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated because of any action or inaction on the part of the present respondent and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable in law and the same deserves to be dismissed in limine. 5. I say and submit that petitioner had filed a Special Civil Application No. 16604 of 2007 before this Hon'ble High Court for getting appointment on compassionate ground for Class-III in the School named N.H Shah High School at Bayard, this is here before Your Lordship at respondent no. I further say and submit that in the said matter this Hon'ble High Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice: H.K. Rathod) on 2.07.2007 passed and order to made representation and it should be decided within three months. Regarding the aforesaid order we have given hearing to the school and petitioner on 9.10.2007, after hearing both the parties and after perusing the relevant record we have decided the representation of the petitioner on the same day. 6. I say and submit that as per the Government circular 20% ban on non teaching staff there are 15 posts are available but there is only one post vacant is of peon except that no post is vacant. 7. I say and submit that as per Government circular whichever post is vacant Class-III, or Class-IV petitioner can appoint but there is no vacant post in Class-III, in the said school therefore, the school/respondent no. 4 is ready to give appointment for Class-IV post of peon. The school authority is also ready to give appointment in Class-III as and when the post is available vacant, therefore, decision taken on 9-10-2007 is just and proper and as per policy of Government. 8. I say and submit that petitioner has contended a case of one Mr. Bhatiya that he has promoted as junior clerk but I am denying specifically. I further say and submit that there is no any vacant post in Class-II, therefore, there is no question of promotion of any one.” 6. 8. I say and submit that petitioner has contended a case of one Mr. Bhatiya that he has promoted as junior clerk but I am denying specifically. I further say and submit that there is no any vacant post in Class-II, therefore, there is no question of promotion of any one.” 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the authority concerned committed any error in declining compassionate appointment. 7. The father of the writ applicant had put in twenty nine years of service. On the demise of the father, family received quite a substantial amount towards the retiral benefits. The widow i.e. the mother of the writ applicant, as on date, is receiving family pension. There is no question of giving compassionate appointment now after a period of twelve years from the date of the demise of the late father. 8. I may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, AIR 2013 SC 3365 . I may quote paragraphs 5 to 13 of the decision as under: 5. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing 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. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 6. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , this Court has considered the nature of the right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court observed as under: 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 exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis. (Emphasis added) 7. An ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Furthermore, an application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 8. The Courts and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments. 9. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, AIR 2004 SC 4504 , while dealing with the issue, this Court held that even the Supreme Court should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 issuing a direction to give compassionate appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Scheme/Rules etc., as the provisions have to be complied with mandatorily and any appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the scheme would be illegal. 10. 10. The word vested is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page 1563, as vested, Fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are vested when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. 11. In Websters Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page 1397, vested is defined as Law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest. (Vide: Bibi Sayeeda v. State of Bihar, (1996) 7 SCC 127 : AIR 1996 SC 516 and J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 570 ) Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed. (Vide: Kuldip Singh v. Government, NCT Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 702 : AIR 2006 SC 2652 ) 12. A scheme containing an in pari materia clause, as is involved in this case was considered by this Court in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 . Clause 14 of the said Scheme is verbatim to clause 14 of the scheme involved herein, which reads as under: 14. Date of effect of the scheme and disposal of pending applications: The Scheme will come into force with effect from the date it is approved by the Board of Directors. Applications pending under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this new Scheme is approved by the Board will be dealt with in accordance with Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount provided they fulfill all the terms and conditions of this scheme. 13. Applications pending under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this new Scheme is approved by the Board will be dealt with in accordance with Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount provided they fulfill all the terms and conditions of this scheme. 13. The Court considered various aspects of service jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the Scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the Scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In State Bank of India (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the case under the new Scheme has to be considered. 9. In view of the above, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.