JUDGMENT : Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner challenges an order dated July 4, 2017 passed by the Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation, i.e. the respondent No. 5 herein. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (CSTC, for short) and he died-in-harness on December 15, 2006. The petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground within a reasonable time thereafter. 3. Since that application for appointment on compassionate ground was not disposed of, he filed a writ petition being W.P. 26015(W) of 2016. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated February 15, 2017 by directing the respondent No. 5 to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner within the period as mentioned in the said order. Pursuant to the same, the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed. 4. I have heard Mr. Ghosh, the learned advocate for the petitioner. I have not called on Mr. Majumder, the learned advocate for the CSTC to make any submission. 5. The order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the respondents had proceeded on the basis that the Corporation has now no scheme or policy of its own for appointment on compassionate ground. He has further submitted that this cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner as his first application was pursuant to the scheme which was definitely in vogue and, therefore, he should be governed by the scheme which was governed the field at the time of death of his predecessor. 6. Such a submission does not merit any consideration. The law on the point is very well-settled that appointment on compassionate ground is always a scheme related appointment and until and unless there is a valid scheme providing for appointment on compassionate ground, an applicant cannot ask for the same even if his predecessor-in-interest dies in harness. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 has specifically observed that the scheme must be valid on the date of consideration of the applicant's case. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 has specifically observed that the scheme must be valid on the date of consideration of the applicant's case. Therefore, the more important thing is not the scheme that was in existence at the time of the death of an employee but whether the same is still available with the employer at the time of consideration of the application. Unless there is a scheme, the employer cannot offer any job to any dependant of a deceased employee. 8. By an order dated May 19, 2017, this Court in the case of Dilip Paswan v. Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. (W.P. 4467(W) of 2017) had taken the same view that without any scheme in vogue on the date of consideration of the application for appointment on compassionate ground, the authority cannot consider the same. 9. In such view of it, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent No. 5. He has approached the issue from the proper perspective. 10. I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.