JUDGMENT : Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. 1. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of State Bank of Mysore which has now been amalgamated with the State Bank of India. Her husband died on August 29, 2011 leaving the petitioner and her son as his heirs. 2. After the death of her husband the petitioner filed an application for the grant of family pension and gratuity. The petitioner alleges that she had met the Branch Manager of the former State Bank of Mysore with a request to release the service benefits of her deceased husband in her favour and also for providing an appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner says that she received a sum of Rs. 10,19,574/- as death-cum-retirement benefit and she has paid Rs. 10,58,145/- as the outstanding amount relating to the loan account of her deceased husband. She filed an application on June 8, 2012 to the Branch Manager for granting lump sum amount against compassionate appointment and other service benefits. She says that she came to learn that a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- had been transferred to her pension account. She informed the bank that the said amount might be retransferred to the bank authority as she was interested to get a suitable employment. She filed a writ petition in the year 2012 for release of the gratuity and other service benefits of her deceased husband. During the pendency of the writ petition the Branch Manager undertook to pay the same and the writ petition was withdrawn. 3. Since the entire service benefits of her deceased husband was not given to her she filed a second writ petition. That was disposed of by this Court requesting the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as held by the husband of the petitioner with the Co-operative Credit Society along with the accrued interest. The High Court observed that it was expected that the authority would take a decision on her claim of appointment on compassionate ground. There were other ancillary directions also. 4. It appears that the Chief General Manager of the erstwhile bank considered the request for the grant of compassionate appointment of the petitioner and observed that her husband had passed away on August 29, 2011 and the petitioner had been paid an ex-gratia lump sum amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the same has been credited to her savings bank account. It appears that the Chief General Manager of the erstwhile bank considered the request for the grant of compassionate appointment of the petitioner and observed that her husband had passed away on August 29, 2011 and the petitioner had been paid an ex-gratia lump sum amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the same has been credited to her savings bank account. Since the cut off date prescribed for reintroduction of grant of compassionate appointment was August 5, 2014 and the request of the petitioner for ex-gratia lump sum had already been favourably considered, it would not be possible to consider her further request for an appointment in the bank on compassionate ground. The petitioner alleged that she again made a representation that the said sum of ex-gratia as credited in her pension account was without any prior notice or information and beyond her consent and the bank authorities deliberately did not take any decision regarding the application for compassionate appointment on the death of her husband. 5. The petitioner also wanted to make out a case that she became surprised to know that the application dated June 8, 2012 was submitted by her requesting for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is her specific allegation that prior to the withdrawal of the first writ petition, the Branch Manager obtained her signatures on different forms and because of the state of mind she was passing through, she signed different forms and applications without knowing anything to get the pension and the service benefit of her deceased husband. The respondent bank at the time of consideration of her application for appointment on compassionate ground did not disclose anything about the said application. Even at the time of disposal of the second writ petition, the bank did not disclose the alleged application and everything had been done beyond the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. Therefore, she has assailed the said communication as bad in law, motivated and liable to be struck down. She has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the order, dated August 7, 2014, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and also for a direction upon the bank as well as the Employees' Cooperative Society to pay her a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards death benefit on the demise of her husband. 6. 2,00,000/- towards death benefit on the demise of her husband. 6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the Manager of the relevant branch of the State Bank of India has filed a report in the form of an affidavit. It has been specifically stated that on the application of the petitioner the respondent bank had paid a sum of Rs. 10,19,574/- to the petitioner on January 20, 2012 towards the death benefit of the deceased employee from the Provident Fund and S.B.I. Life Insurance. She has also been paid a sum of Rs. 6,75,891/- towards her entitlement for gratuity. She also gets a monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 17,267/- and on the request of the petitioner all loans standing in the name of her deceased husband, including his loan in the Employees' Co-operative Credit Society, had been closed by the bank. A sum of Rs. 19,092/- has been paid towards the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of her deceased husband. 7. The respondents further say that on the application of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- had been credited to her account in lieu of compassionate appointment. She made the application in the prescribed form. 8. The scheme of making payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground was in vogue in the State Bank of India till the circular, dated December 27, 2014 was issued whereby it was informed that on receipt of communication from the Ministry of Finance, the bank could have both the options i.e., compassionate appointment in exceptional cases or payment of lump sum ex-gratia amount. It has been very specifically recorded that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under the Scheme for compassionate appointment as her deceased husband did not fulfill the criteria of exceptional cases as mentioned by this Scheme. 9. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said report wherein she has stated that on September 9, 2011 due to extreme financial hardship she submitted an application for compassionate appointment. On June 8, 2012 due to the financial hardship for not getting the pension, she submitted an application to the erstwhile bank for payment of gratuity. She has largely reiterated her stand taken in the writ petition. On June 8, 2012 due to the financial hardship for not getting the pension, she submitted an application to the erstwhile bank for payment of gratuity. She has largely reiterated her stand taken in the writ petition. She claims that the order, dated August 7, 2014, issued by the Ministry of Finance, applies to her and the respondents authorities upon misconception of law rejected her prayer for compassionate appointment. She has repeated that the lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment was transferred to her pension account without her consent and knowledge. 10. It appears that the petitioner has taken contradictory stands about her filing of the application for lump sum payment. While she says in paragraph 8A of the writ petition and in the rejoinder that she submitted the application on June 8, 2012 to the Branch Manager under duress and hardship for granting lump sum amount against compassionate appointment, in paragraph 17 of the writ petition she came up with a case that the Branch Manager of the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore obtained her signature on different forms and she due to her state of mind and without knowing anything signed on them. It has also been her allegation that the bank authorities did not disclose anything about the said letter to her. 11. Thus the two cases made at two places of the petition contradict each other. The case made out by the petitioner that the Branch Manager obtained signatures from her is on the face of it not a very convincing defence. Apart from anything else, a Branch Manager has no personal interest nor any axe to grind in getting any signature from the petitioner in the manner as alleged. That apart, the petitioner cannot, after signing the documents, be allowed to contend that she had signed the documents without going through the same or without understanding their contents. The law on the point has been very well-settled for the last eight decades, as laid down in Cairns v. Cairns, reported in AIR 1938 P.C. 103 that once a person signs a document, he or she cannot subsequently take a plea that she had not gone through the same, unless a case of coercion, she being a pardanishin lady, employment of force etc., are alleged. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from taking the defence that she signed any document without knowing its contents. 12. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from taking the defence that she signed any document without knowing its contents. 12. I also do not find any substance in the allegation that the bank did not disclose anything to her about her application for payment of lump sum ex-gratia. Where was the need for the bank to disclose? That she had filed an application must have been known to her. After all, it was her application. Why must the blame be laid at the doors of the bank for not disclosing to the applicant the fact that she filed the application? No authority to whom an application has been filed by an applicant never informs nor is it required to inform the applicant himself or herself that he or she had filed an application. 13. It is also not understood how the question of transferring the amount to her account without her consent arises. The bank transferred the amount pursuant to her application which itself constituted a consent. Much assertion to the contrary, the application, dated June 8, 2012, to the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank, was not in any prescribed format, but was made on a plain paper. And the petitioner made a copy of it before submission, otherwise it could not have been annexed to the writ petition. 14. Thus the petitioner cannot say that without her asking a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was transferred to her bank account suddenly by the respondents authorities. She definitely made an application for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground and the respondents had merely transferred the said amount to the bank account of the petitioner pursuant to the application made by her. Therefore, she cannot be allowed to take a stand that without knowing it she discovered that a big sum was transferred to her account. 15. Even that apart, it appears from the report filed by the respondents that the Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum was effective in the State Bank of India till December 27, 2014 when the new circular had been issued. Had there been no such Scheme the bank would have not been in a position to remit any amount to the petitioner's bank account. Had there been no such Scheme the bank would have not been in a position to remit any amount to the petitioner's bank account. It was notified by the Circular, dated December 27, 2014, that banks could have both the options i.e., the compassionate appointment in exceptional cases or payment of lump sum ex-gratia amount. The bank says that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under the relevant Scheme of 2014 since the deceased employee did not fulfill the criteria of coming under exceptional cases as mentioned in the Scheme itself, viz., where an employee dies while performing the official duty as a result of an act of violence, terrorism, robbery, dacoity etc., or where an employee dies within five years of the first appointment or before reaching 30 years whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children. The stand of the authority is that the petitioner could not be appointed after the ex-gratia lump sum had been paid to her. 16. The law on the point is very well-settled that compassionate appointment is basically a Scheme-related offer given by the employer of a deceased employee. Unless there is a scheme for it there cannot be any compassionate appointment. Therefore, a claim for compassionate appointment is traceable to the specific Scheme framed by the employer and a claimant has no right outside the said Scheme. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar, reported in 2010 (11) SCC 661 had specifically laid down that a compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. Therefore, an employer may wind up or modify the Scheme at any point of time, depending upon its financial capacity, its policy and availability of posts. It can never be treated as a source of appointment. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed, what follows is that when a Scheme is abolished or modified, any pending application seeking appointment under the Scheme would also ceased to exist, unless saved. 17. In the present case the petitioner had already been paid the ex-gratia lump sum amount long before the Scheme, she heavily relies on, was promulgated. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed, what follows is that when a Scheme is abolished or modified, any pending application seeking appointment under the Scheme would also ceased to exist, unless saved. 17. In the present case the petitioner had already been paid the ex-gratia lump sum amount long before the Scheme, she heavily relies on, was promulgated. As per the ratio in the case mentioned above, it is the Scheme holding the field at the relevant point of time would be applied to a pending application for compassionate appointment and the Scheme for compassionate appointment which is prevalent now in the respondent bank entitles a dependent of a deceased employee to compassionate appointment only in respect of two classes of deaths as mentioned above. The petitioner's husband did not come within either. Thus, I find that the prayer for the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be acceded to. 18. The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to the costs. 20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.