ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner’s mother expired while in service of the respondents on 19.3.2007 leaving behind three sons and two daughters. Earlier, the petitioner’s father also expired after long service of the respondents in 1979 leading to compassionate appointment of the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment but did not receive any response from the respondents and, therefore, gave a notice of demand in justice through an advocate on 19.7.2007. A reply to the notice submitted by the respondents stated that they have withdrawn the scheme for compassionate appointment and the bank has formulated a new scheme for payment of exgratia in lump sum amount. 2. The respondents filed a detailed reply and stated that the petitioner was only entitled for exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the new scheme dated 16.6.2006. 3. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon Canara Bank v. Mahesh Kumar [reported in 2015 (7) SCC 412 ] : ( AIR 2015 SC 2411 ). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Nitesh Rawat has argued that the delay cannot be a ground for depriving the petitioner from compassionate appointment and once an application had been made as acknowledged by the respondents then it was their duty to pass on whatever benefits that the petitioner was entitled for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Shri Rupin Kala along with Shri Munesh Sharma, Advocate stated that the ratio of Canara Bank would not apply as in the same precedent law the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the scheme at the time of death has to be made applicable whereas in this case already the scheme at the time of death i.e. on 19.3.2007 for payment of exgratia lump sum amount in lieu of amount of compassionate ground was applicable. The counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of the court to clause V of the scheme in which maximum time period was stipulated for making an application. The learned counsel for the respondent also drew attention of the court to clause VII of the scheme whereby it was stated that the exgratia payment shall be taken only if the family from retiral benefits/terminal benefits/other sources was receiving less than 60% of the last drawn salary of the employee. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent also drew attention of the court to clause VII of the scheme whereby it was stated that the exgratia payment shall be taken only if the family from retiral benefits/terminal benefits/other sources was receiving less than 60% of the last drawn salary of the employee. 6. The counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Ors. [reported in 2011 (11) SCC 702 ] : ( AIR 2011 SC 1974 ) and judgment of Smt. Sushila Devi v. Union of India and Ors. [reported in 2007 WLC (Raj) UC (514)] as well as State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Kumari Urfeen Sabri [reported in 2013(3) CDR. 1642 : (2012 Lab IC 4275)(Raj) (DB)] and Union of India and Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar [reported in 2010 (2) SCC 591] : (2009 AIR SCW 7621). All these precedent law cited by the respondent lay down that a person shall be entitled for the benefits only if he exercises his option in the specified time. 7. After hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited, this court is of the opinion that application was made by the petitioner within time period prescribed under condition No.5 of the scheme of the 2006. The application was for compassionate appointment as the family of the deceased employee did not know that the scheme of compassionate appointment was no longer in vogue and the respondents had replaced the same by a scheme of exgratia payment in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, it was not the fault of the petitioner that they made an application for compassionate appointment well within the time stipulated in the condition No. 5 of the Scheme of 2006. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the benefits shall be given only if the petitioner qualifies condition No. 7 of the Scheme of 2006 of not having 60 % of the last drawn salary shall not apply in light of the Canera Bank Judgment in which it has been held that the terminal benefits cannot be counted for depriving the benefit arising out of the service of the deceased employee. This is in accordance with following proposition of Canara Bank Judgment :- “21. This is in accordance with following proposition of Canara Bank Judgment :- “21. Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd.’s case, the 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.” 8. The respondent were under a legal obligation to grant whatever benefit which were accruing to the petitioner out of the scheme as the petitioner had applied in time for compassionate appointment and was not aware of the Scheme of 2006. The respondents have acknowledged the application in Annx. 3 for the compassionate appointment. This court directs the respondents to consider the application of compassionate appointment as application of exgratia payment and the same being filed in time, it may be considered and such payment of exgratia may be granted to the family within 3 months from furnishing the certified copy of this order.