JUDGMENT : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard the learned counsel Ms. N. Hussain appearing for the petitioner. The State Bank of India (SBI) and their officers are represented by the learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.S Sharma. 2. The petitioner's father Lt. Dwijendra Mohan Das died in harness on 13.04.2004 while serving as a Messenger in the office of the Chief Manager, SBI, Guwahati Branch and the son's prayer is for a direction on the SBI, for consideration of his compassionate appointment. The learned counsel Ms. N. Hussain submits that the petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased and considering the financial hardship of the family, the compassionate appointment claim should be considered by the Bank authorities. 3. On the other hand, Mr. S.S Sharma, the learned Sr. counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed by the SBI on 30.09.2011 to project that the circular issued by the Central Government on 07.08.1996 relating to compassionate appointment, being followed earlier by the SBI, was withdrawn in August, 2005 and it was replaced by a scheme for consideration of payment of lump sum ex-gratia. However, in view of the passage of time, the entitlement to ex-gratia which is meant to tide over the immediate financial crisis for the family, is questioned at this stage, by the respondents' lawyer. 4. It is relevant to record in the above context that during the proceeding of this case on 01.04.2013, an assurance was given by the bank's lawyer to the effect that if the petitioner makes an application even at that stage, the SBI will consider the claim for ex-gratia payment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application accordingly was filed but the Asstt. General Manager of the SBI under his communication Memo No. AGM/57.SECTT/404, dated 12.03.2014, had rejected the claim for ex-gratia payment. 6. The picture that emerges from above is that the bank employee died on 13.04.2004 and his family had survived for last 14 years without the benefit of compassionate appointment. Moreover, the compassionate appointment scheme followed in the SBI is withdrawn since August, 2005. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that direction for compassionate appointment cannot be issued in this case when the scheme is discontinued for last over a decade. 7. Moreover, the compassionate appointment scheme followed in the SBI is withdrawn since August, 2005. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that direction for compassionate appointment cannot be issued in this case when the scheme is discontinued for last over a decade. 7. In so far as the rejection of the claim for lump sum ex-gratia as is communicated on 12.03.2014, it is seen that the bank authorities had failed to consider the application on merit, but rejected the same by declaring that the same can “not be entertained at this stage”. Such ground for rejection in the context of the assurance of the bank's lawyer made before the Court, is found to be unacceptable in my understanding, because of the unequivocal assurance to consider the claim for ex-gratia payment, the petitioner's application should have been considered on merit without being bothered about the late stage of application. 8. In the above circumstances, the SBI authorities are directed to re-consider the claim for exgratia payment for the family of Late Dwijendra Mohan Das without being influenced by the belated application. Such re-consideration is found to be justified in view of the assurance made before this Court on 01.04.2013 by the learned Sr. counsel representing the bank. To facilitate the consideration, the petitioner should furnish a copy of this order and also the application and then an appropriate order should be passed thereon by the bank authorities. It is ordered accordingly. 9. With the above order, the case stands disposed of. No cost.