JUDGMENT : V. Shircy, J. 1. Correctness and Sustainability of Ext.P5 verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.180/00625/2015 is under challenge at the instance of the respondents/Department before the Tribunal. 2. The applicants/respondents herein applied to the Department claiming to be considered for compassionate appointment on account of death of Sri. Prakash, the father of the 1st respondent and the husband of the 2nd respondent, who died on 30.6.2011 while on duty. The request for compassionate appointment for the first respondent was rejected by the Department. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents approached the Tribunal and by the verdict under challenge, the Tribunal directed the Department to reconsider the request for appointment as per an order dated 30.5.2017. The said order is challenged in this Original Petition alleging that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondents possess a land and building and hence their case is not a hard and deserving one. The Department was right in not including them in the category of persons, who have no house or land and in awarding the appropriate point of zero under that attribute as per Rule 10 of Relative Merit Points System (for short 'RMP') is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Department. 3. We heard the learned Counsel for the Department as well the learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. Late V. Prakash was working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS SV for short) at Varkala Post Office. He expired on 13.06.2012. He left behind his wife, the 2nd respondent and his daughter, the 1st respondent. On 4.7.2012, the 2nd respondent had submitted an application for employment for her daughter, the 1st respondent, as per the scheme for employment under compassionate ground. The Scheme provides employment to the Dependents to save them from financial crisis, but unfortunately the application submitted by the widow of Sri. Prakash for his daughter was rejected as per Annexure-A7 dated 03.09.2014 as the Circle Relaxation Committee has not recommended the case. In the communication rejecting the claim, it is specifically stated as follows : - ''For adjudging hard and deserving cases the criterion followed is that the total of the Relative Merit Points (RMPS) should be over and above 50 points. The total of Relative Merit points (RMPS) secured by the 1st respondent is 47 only''. 5. In the communication rejecting the claim, it is specifically stated as follows : - ''For adjudging hard and deserving cases the criterion followed is that the total of the Relative Merit Points (RMPS) should be over and above 50 points. The total of Relative Merit points (RMPS) secured by the 1st respondent is 47 only''. 5. The Scheme of the Department for compassionate appointment is produced as Ext.R1. The said Scheme was subsequently revised by Exts.R2, R3 and R6. Though the document by which the indigence condition of the family was assessed by the Circle Relaxation Committee ('CRC' for short) and allocation of points to various attributes based on a hundred point scale, is not available, the details are furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the Department. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the CRC did not recommend the case of the 1st respondent as she had secured only 47 points, whereas 50 points had to be secured to come under the 'hard and deserving cases' category, and so her request was rejected. The rejection of her application was mainly on the ground that they are possessing 3.24 Ares of land. Annexure A5 is a Certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Chirayinkeezhu certifying that the 2nd respondent is in possession of 03.24 Ares of land. Ext.R4 would show that a building worth Rs.2,49,601/- is situated in the land. So, the 1st respondent cannot be categorized as a homeless or landless person and hence, the rejection of the application by the Department is justified is the stand taken by the Department. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the family does not derive any income from the 3.24 Ares of land and the property is not in the name of the 2nd respondent, but it is a portion of the family property and with the assistance of Panchayath, a small residential building was constructed and denial of compassionate appointment on the mere fact that they are residing in the small building in that property without considering their financial condition is illegal, arbitrary and not justifiable. 6. It is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds to provide immediate relief to the destitute family of the deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis and it is not another source of recruitment and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 6. It is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds to provide immediate relief to the destitute family of the deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis and it is not another source of recruitment and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Ext.R1, the guidelines of the Scheme for appointment under the compassionate ground would show that ownership of an agricultural land by the family is an attribute to disqualify a person to a considerable extent to deny the benefits of the Scheme. A person who possesses no house or land will be allotted 10 points, a person who owns house only or land will get 5 points and there will be no point for a person who owns a house and land. It is discernible from the reply statement that no point was awarded to the 1st respondent as the family of the deceased is in possession of a residential house and an extent of 3.24 Ares. Whether this 3.24 Ares of land and the residential house therein have any relevance so as to deny the benefits of the Scheme or to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground, is the question to be answered. At the outset, it is to be noted that except the fact that they are residing in a small building constructed by the Panchayath, there is no document to prove that the respondents are deriving any income from the said 3.24 Ares of land. Moreover, when a building is situated in such an extent of land, no land will be left back capable of rendering any income to the family for their livelihood so as to conclude it as an 'agricultural land'. It is also to be noted that in the Scheme, 'agricultural land' has not been defined. In Wharton’s Pocket Law Dictionary 'Agricultural land', means any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, cottage gardens exceeding one quarter of an acre, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, but does not include land occupied together with a house as a park, gardens other than as aforesaid, pleasure grounds, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation, or land used as a racecourse. 7. 7. In Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala v. V. Venugopala Rajah, ( AIR 1977 SC 121 (126), it is held that only if the land is capable of cultivation and actually cultivated, it could be considered as an agricultural land. As evident by Ext.R4 & R5 the building having an extent of 76 sq.metres is situated in this 3.24 ares. The building as mentioned above, is a small residential building constructed with the financial assistance of Block Development Officer under Indira Avas Yojana Scheme. As it is only a bit of land with a small residential building, it is not possible to expect that any cultivation is being effected to have productive income quite sufficient for the requirements of the family, so as to take them away from benefits flowing from Ext.R1 Scheme. The value of the land and building are assessed by Annexure R4 and A5. It is hard to presume or expect that the family should sell off the same and pull on with the sale proceeds when it is clear that the property does not give any productive income to the family for their livelihood. This would also indicate that the family is still living in a penurious condition. Therefore, the contention of the department that the CRC considered the indigence of the family correctly and properly is without any merits. So also it is to be noted that the family had to repay an amount of Rs.1,69,504/- which was outstanding as the liability of the deceased. The discharge benefits availed is only Rs.1,05,000/-. It is also well settled that terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. When the scope of the scheme is to help dependents of deceased employees to overcome the immediate and unexpected financial difficulties on account of the death of their sole breadwinner, rejecting the claim holding that the bit of land in their possession is an 'Agricultural land' is absolutely wrong and it is against the spirit of the scheme introduced, with an intention to give a helping hand to the family in penury of the deceased who served the department for a pretty long time. The effort of the department should not be, how, to deny the benefit but it should be, how it can be implemented to achieve object of the Scheme. The effort of the department should not be, how, to deny the benefit but it should be, how it can be implemented to achieve object of the Scheme. When the matter is viewed in this line we find it difficult it accept the decision of the department that the untimely death of the employee has not thrown the family to vagrancy. The indigent circumstances of the family loom large and it is a clear indication to infer that the Relative Weight-age System was applied without ascertaining the ground realities. Considering these facts and circumstances, we find that the Tribunal has rightly directed to reconsider the application submitted by the respondents after quashing Annexure-A-7 order of the Department dated 03.09.2014. We have no doubt to conclude that the criterion followed by the Department in rejecting the application of the respondents was not after properly considering the Scheme implemented by the Department so as to save the family, which was left in dark and penury on the death of the sole earning member. Hence, we find absolutely no justifiable or valid ground to interdict with the order under challenge. 8. In the above said circumstance, we find that this petition is liable to be dismissed and we do so directing the Department to reconsider the representation of the respondents at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Dismissed.