JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Mr. Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. Shri Ashok Chakraverty fairly submits that action of respondents in not granting benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is bad in law. Petitioner has challenged the scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum amount by contending that petitioner has a valuable legal right to get order of compassionate appointment. In alternatively, Shri Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if he does not succeed, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia amount as per Annexure P-1. 3. Heard at length. 4. This is settled law that there is no legal statutory or constitutional right to get appointment on compassionate basis. Compassionate appointment is given by relaxing the rules and it depends on the basis of existence of policy/scheme. In the State Bank of India v. Rajkumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 . The Apex Court opined as under:- 8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. 5. In the light of this judgment, it can not be said that the petitioner has any enforceable right of compassionate appointment. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. 5. In the light of this judgment, it can not be said that the petitioner has any enforceable right of compassionate appointment. In the policy, there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. Accordingly, I am only inclined to consider the alternative prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered that if petitioner has still not received the ex-gratia amount, he may prefer appropriate application for grant of said amount and submit it before respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In turn, the said respondents shall consider and pass appropriate order for payment of said amount to the petitioner within sixty days. If petitioner is found entitled for payment of any such amount, the amount may be extended in her favour. If the authorities decide it otherwise, they shall pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner. 7. The petition is disposed of without expressing any view on merits of the case.