JUDGMENT : 1. This matter came up for orders on an application preferred under Rule 161 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for early hearing of the appeal. The matter being related to appointment on compassionate grounds, the need of early hearing is obvious. Accordingly, the application is allowed. With the consent of learned counsels appearing on behalf of rival parties the appeal is heard on merits today itself. 2. By the judgment impugned dated 13.5.2013, the learned Single Bench while accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 963/2011 directed the appellant-respondent bank to consider case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and to pass appropriate orders for providing appointment to him. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that father of respondent-petitioner while in service of the appellant-bank died on 21.8.2000. An application dated 8.9.2000 was submitted by Smt. Dhapu Devi, mother of the respondent-petitioner, to have appointment on compassionate ground for her son on attaining majority. The appellant respondent-bank under a communication dated 19.9.2000 requested Smt. Dhapu Devi to communicate all necessary details about the ward of the deceased employee for whom she was claiming appointment. No response to the communication aforesaid was given. 4. On 6.10.2006 the Board of Management of the respondent-bank introduced a new policy to deal with the cases pertaining to the concession to be allowed to deceased employees of the bank. In the New Scheme, there was no provision for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. On 27.7.2008 the respondent-petitioner submitted an application to the Chairman of the respondent-bank claiming appointment on compassionate grounds being ward of a deceased employee of the bank. He reiterated his cause by another application dated 5.8.2008, but the respondent-bank rejected the same under a letter dated 5.8.2008 being barred by time. Further under letter dated 20.1.2009 it was communicated to the petitioner that he is not eligible to have appointment under the current policy as well as the policy that was in existence prior to 6.10.2006. After having rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds the petitioner made a demand through a notice given to the Chairman of the bank. The notice aforesaid dated 20.1.2009 as per the respondent-petitioner was not responded and, therefore, he preferred a petition for writ in the year 2010. 6. After having rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds the petitioner made a demand through a notice given to the Chairman of the bank. The notice aforesaid dated 20.1.2009 as per the respondent-petitioner was not responded and, therefore, he preferred a petition for writ in the year 2010. 6. The learned Single Judge, as already stated, accepted the writ petition and directed the appellant to consider case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. While accepting the writ petition, the total discussion made by learned Single Bench is reduced as follows :- "Upon perusal of the above order, it is apparent that the respondents are not denying appointment on the ground of ineligibility or upon the fact that petitioner's father was not employee of the Bank but denied appointment solely on the ground of delay in filing the application for appointment. In the opinion of the Court when first application was filed by mother of the petitioner within time then obviously the respondent Bank is under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground when petitioner attained the age of majority. After considering overall facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment forthwith within a period of one month from today and pass appropriate order for providing appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground." 7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-bank that he respondent-petitioner at the time of death of his father was minor and under the application dated 8.9.2000 his mother claimed to protect rights of her ward to have appointment on compassionate grounds on attaining majority. The application aforesaid was immediately responded and necessary details about dependents were demanded. No response to the same was given. The Scheme applicable for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be repealed in the month of October, 2006 on introduction of New Scheme on 06.10.2006. In the New Scheme, there is no provision for providing appointment to a ward of deceased employee and, as such, ward could have certain monetary benefit including ex-gratia only. The learned Single Bench as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, thus, erred while directing the bank to provide appointment. 8. In the New Scheme, there is no provision for providing appointment to a ward of deceased employee and, as such, ward could have certain monetary benefit including ex-gratia only. The learned Single Bench as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, thus, erred while directing the bank to provide appointment. 8. Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-petitioner, the application submitted by mother of the petitioner was not at all considered by the appellant-respondent bank and, therefore, the claim of appointment of the respondent-petitioner is required to be considered as per the policy existing in the year 2000. It is further submitted that the bank rejected the application only on the count of delay in submitting application to have appointment on compassionate grounds but this fact is apparently wrong as the application was submitted on 8.9.2000 i.e. just after a lapse of 17 days from the date of death of father of the respondent-petitioner. It is asserted that the learned Single Bench rightly noticed this fact and, therefore, the direction given is just and proper and that does not warrant any interference in appellate jurisdiction. 9. Heard learned counsels. 10. It is the position admitted that father the respondent-petitioner died while in service on 21.8.2000. An application was submitted by mother of the respondent-petitioner on 8.9.2000 to keep the rights of her minor dependant intact till his attaining majority. It is also not in dispute that under a letter dated 19.9.2000 certain particulars were demanded by the bank but the same were never supplied. It is also not in dispute that the Scheme that was applicable for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds at the time of death of the respondent-petitioner's father came to be repealed on 6.10.2006 and in the New Scheme, there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent-petitioner at the first instance submitted application for appointment on 27.7.2008 and he reiterated his claim on 5.8.2008. The claim made by the petitioner were rejected under two communications dated 5.8.2008 and 20.1.2009. In the communication dated 5.8.2008 the denial was made on the count of delay in submitting application. Under the communication dated 20.1.2009 it was specifically stated that the claim made for appointment on compassionate grounds is not tenable, as the petitioner being lacking eligibility. The claim made by the petitioner were rejected under two communications dated 5.8.2008 and 20.1.2009. In the communication dated 5.8.2008 the denial was made on the count of delay in submitting application. Under the communication dated 20.1.2009 it was specifically stated that the claim made for appointment on compassionate grounds is not tenable, as the petitioner being lacking eligibility. The learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petition has taken into consideration the communication dated 5.8.2008 only. The Single Bench, though, has referred the communication dated 20.1.2009 but has not examined the reasons given therein for denying appointment to the respondent-petitioner on compassionate grounds. 11. Be that as it may, we have examined merits of the claim made by the respondent-petitioner. At the threshold we would like to state that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such appointment is a concession to the ward/dependents of a deceased employee facing harness due to untimely death of the sole bread-earner of the family. The harness as existing at the time of death does not remain in currency for indefinite period. In the case in hand as already stated father of the petitioner died on 21.8.2000 and now after a lapse of about 17 years the harness then existing must have not been in currency except its emotional effects. So far as the eligibility of the respondent-petitioner is concerned, at the time of death of his father admittedly he was not possessing the requisite eligibility to be considered for appointment. Suffice to mention that while making appointment on compassionate grounds, the concession given is only to the process of selection and not to the eligibility required for appointment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent failed to satisfy us about having any provision in the Scheme to keep pending rights of a dependent to have appointment on compassionate grounds till acquiring the eligibility including the minimum age required for appointment through direct recruitment or otherwise. In view of it, the claim of appointment made by the petitioner in the year 2008 was not at all sustainable. It is also relevant to notice that when the petitioner claimed for appointment in the year 2008 no Scheme was in currency with the appellant-bank to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. In the New Scheme the required was only pertaining to award of certain monetary benefits. It is also relevant to notice that when the petitioner claimed for appointment in the year 2008 no Scheme was in currency with the appellant-bank to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. In the New Scheme the required was only pertaining to award of certain monetary benefits. On this count also we are of the considered opinion that the bank rightly denied appointment to the respondent-petitioner on compassionate grounds. We would also like to refer judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in AIR 2015 SC 2411 on which heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-petitioner with submission that if the application on compassionate ground would have been given well within the time, then the delay occurred in grant of appointment on count of employer is inconsequential. On going through the entire judgment we are of the opinion that the same does not support the petitioner at all. In the case aforesaid, it was the position admitted that the dependent applied timely for compassionate appointment but his claim was not decided by the employer for years together and in the meanwhile the scheme stood substituted by certain other provisions. That is not the situation in the present case. As already stated in the case in hand, the first application was given by mother of the petitioner and that too for the purpose of protecting rights of her dependent. She never disclosed the necessary particulars as desired even about the person for whom she was claiming appointment. In entirety, the appeal deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 13.5.2013 is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the respondent-petitioner is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, we would like to state that if any right of the petitioner under the Scheme that was in currency prior to 6.10.2006 or the Scheme introduced subsequent thereto subsists, then the same shall be considered by the bank positively on submission of a representation by the respondent-petitioner. Appeal Allowed In Above Terms.