ORDER : 1. The case of the petitioners is that Rituraj, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no.2, was working as a Sweeper with the State Bank of India was to be soon regularized, but expired on 4.11.2016. It has been submitted that in this view of the matter, petitioner no.2 (wife of the deceased Rituraj) nominated petitioner no.1 (son of the deceased Rituraj) for being given compassionate appointment under the relevant scheme of the State Bank of India and submitted an application for the purpose. By letter dated 2.11.2017, the respondent-Bank however denied the compassionate appointment as prayed on the ground that the case for the purpose did not fall within the scope of the relevant scheme inasmuch neither had Rituraj passed away as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity while performing official duty nor he had expired within 5 years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years. 2. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj appearing for the petitioner has fairly admitted that indeed the petitioner did not fall within the two categories in which following the death of an employee of the bank, his dependent was entitled to compassionate appointment. He admitted that neither Rituraj had died for reasons of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity while performing his official duty nor within 5 years of his first appointment or before attaining the age of 30 years. Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj however submitted that the conditions of the bank’s scheme for compassionate appointment are wholly arbitrary inasmuch they without just cause confine the right to be considered for compassionate appointment only in two situations where the deceased employee had died within 5 years of his first appointment or before attaining 30 years of age. The limitation on the right to compassionate appointment Mr. Bhardwaj submitted had no intelligible differentia with any nexus to the object to be achieved. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The scheme for compassionate appointment is in the nature of a concession in a deviation from Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandates equality of opportunity in public employment. It is well settled that a concession has to be strictly constructed and cannot be modified by the Court. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The scheme for compassionate appointment is in the nature of a concession in a deviation from Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandates equality of opportunity in public employment. It is well settled that a concession has to be strictly constructed and cannot be modified by the Court. The case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment with the State Bank of India for death of Ritu Raj (father of petitioner no.1 and husband of petitioner no.2) has therefore to be strictly considered in accordance with the operating scheme as it is based on the bank’s policy which applies universally to all concerned employees and their dependents. 6. As recorded above, petitioner no.1’s father had died more than 5 years since his first appointment with the respondent-Bank and when he was admittedly over 30 years of age, which is admitted fact. These two facts took away the dependents of late Rituraj from the benefit of the Bank’s scheme for compassionate appointment. The petitioners therefore have no case for compassionate appointment of petitioner no.2 under the scheme of the respondent-Bank for the purpose. 7. I find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.