JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-respondents, and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Mr. Parikshit Saini and Mr. Mohd Safdar, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners. 2. These appeals are preferred by the India Institute of Technology, Roorkee against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1772 of 2018 and batch dated 29.10.2018. The respondents herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the order extending the contract till 30.06.2018, and in recording that they would not be entitled to continue in service thereafter. All the respondents-writ petitioners are dependants of deceased employees of IIT, Roorkee, and had sought compassionate appointment in terms of the 2002 compassionate appointment Policy which was approved by the Board of Governors of the IIT on 29.06.2002. In terms of the said policy, all compassionate appointments were to be made only to entry level posts in Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’; and the applicants were required to possess the prescribed educational qualifications for recruitment to such posts. All the respondents-writ petitioners herein had sought appointment, on compassionate grounds, in Group ‘C’ posts. 3. The 2002 policy also stipulated (Clause 11) that compassionate appointments would be made against vacancies existing or arising during a calendar year. It required the sanctioned strength to be reviewed at the beginning of every year and noted that, as per the Government of India policy, compassionate appointments were exempt from ban orders on filling up of vacant posts. The 2002 policy required the economic criteria for making appointment on compassionate grounds, as stipulated by the Government of India, to be followed. 4. A clarification was issued by the Board of Governors of the I.I.T. on 08.05.2002, and later on 08.05.2003, that it had, in its resolution dated 29.06.2002, approved the scheme for making appointment on compassionate grounds of some of the widow or dependent son/daughter of the deceased employees/employees invalidated out of service; and the Board had also approved the format of the application to be filled in by the widow/dependent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. 5. While the 2002 policy, as clarified on 08.05.2003, does not place any limitation on the number of vacancies against which compassionate appointments can be made, the Board of Governors of the appellant, in their meeting held on 04.01.2018, resolved to restrict compassionate appointments upto a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota in Group ‘C’ and Group ‘C’ MTS posts. All the respondents-writ petitioners herein were appointed on contract basis, for a period of one year, during the years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. It would suffice, in order to consider the rival contentions put forth by Learned Counsel on either side, if the content of one such appointment letter is noted. One Shri Pankaj Kumar S/o Late Shri Ram Bharose was issued an offer of appointment vide proceeding dated 26.02.2014 with reference to his application dated 11.11.2013 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said letter dated 26.02.2014 records that the Assistant Registrar (Recruitment) was directed to offer, the said individual, appointment to the Institute on contract for Multi Task Office/Laboratory services on compassionate grounds for a period of one year on a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.8892/- p.m. on the terms & conditions as specified therein; these included the condition that appointment on contract was purely temporary for a period of one year from the date of joining, and execution of an undertaking in the enclosed format; after expiry of the contract, the contract would be considered for renewal on the basis of the work performance report of the concerned head; the said employee shall be considered for regular appointment at entry level posts in the Institute as and when regular vacancies are available; appointment, against a regular vacancy, will be made on the basis of qualification and experience for the relevant vacancy, as per the then Institute rules in force; and the contract will automatically stand terminated on completion of one year from the date on which the said employee joined the institute. The said individual was informed that, if the terms and conditions of appointment were acceptable to him, he should communicate his consent for the same within 10 days, and report to duty. 6. The said individual was informed that, if the terms and conditions of appointment were acceptable to him, he should communicate his consent for the same within 10 days, and report to duty. 6. While the said offer of appointment stipulated that the contract would automatically stand terminated on completion of one year from the date of joining, the fact remains that the contract was periodically extended, for a duration of one year each; and, eventually, an office memorandum dated 30.01.2018 was issued stating that the Board of Governors had considered the status of 35 persons, appointed on compassionate grounds, in its meeting held on 16.12.2017; it had resolved that one final extension be granted to them till 30.06.2018; and, as per the termination of service clause mentioned in the offer letter, their contract would automatically stand terminated on completion of one year after joining office i.e. 30.06.2018 i.e. the last date of the extended period of contract. The respondents-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning this office memorandum dated 30.01.2018. 7. An elaborate order was passed by the learned Single Judge wherein he noted that, since there were no existing vacancies at the relevant time, a method was adopted by the Institute by which immediate appointments were made on a so-called “contractual basis”; however, certain conditions were stipulated in the said contract that, subject to availability of posts during the period of contract and its renewal, the claimant would also be liable to be considered for compassionate appointment in “existing vacancies”; though vacancies arose after 2012, the petitioners were not appointed against these vacancies; and therefore, in the year 2017, WPSS No. 1770 of 2017 was filed, wherein the petitioners had specifically pleaded that 9 vacancies were advertised by the Institute for regular appointment, though the petitioners had a prior claim on these vacancies; and an interim order was passed in the said writ petitions not to fill up those nine vacancies. 8. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that all the petitioners were given contractual appointment, and had continued in service for a period of 4 to 5 years, as their contract was renewed based on appraisal of their work. After referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court, in State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 ,V. Sivamurthy Vs. After referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court, in State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 ,V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 13 SCC 730 , Indian Literacy Board and others Vs. Veena Chaturvedi and others, (2005) 3 SCC 79 , and Canara Bank and another Vs. After referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court, in State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 ,V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 13 SCC 730 , Indian Literacy Board and others Vs. Veena Chaturvedi and others, (2005) 3 SCC 79 , and Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 , the Learned Single Judge held that compassionate appointments were an exception to the Rule, and could only be made if the law or a scheme was applicable in the Government or in the Institute; such a request was to be considered promptly because the family, which had lost its sole bread earner, was in dire need of support; this aspect was stressed by the Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468 ; the claim of the petitioners rested on a Scheme of the year 2002-03; reliance was placed by the Institute on a scheme, which came into force recently, and which put a 5% limit on such appointment, though it was not applicable; at the relevant time there were no existing vacancies; yet, considering the financial hardship of the petitioners, appointments were made on contractual basis immediately, so that the petitioners’ family may overcome this hardship; this was done with the stipulated condition that they would be entitled to be considered for future vacancies; such appointments ought to have, therefore, been made as and when such vacancies occurred; that had not been done; while the period of contract was, no doubt, only for a period of one year, but there was a condition that the same may be renewed subject to the work performance of the petitioners; it was the admitted case that, year after year, the contract of the petitioners had been renewed; appointments should be made by the Institute, but only in existing vacancies, meaning thereby that the petitioners did not have any right for creation of any supernumerary posts; though appointments could only be made as and when vacancies arose, considering the fact that the petitioners had already been given contractual appointments, the same should continue; the petitioners’ performance should be examined and assessed at the time of existence of vacancies, and then appointment should be made in accordance with law; and, in so far as financial hardship is concerned, since the same was already considered at the time of initial appointment (on contractual basis) of the petitioners, the same need not be considered again. Consequently all the writ-petitions were allowed, all the impugned orders were quashed, and the appellant herein was directed to continue the petitioners on a contractual basis, subject to their assessment of work; and to consider them for appointment as and when vacancies came up in the Institute. 9. While fairly stating that the Institute had no grievance with the order of the learned Single Judge, in so far as he had directed the petitioners to be considered for regular appointment on compassionate grounds, as and when vacancies arose in the Institute, Shri Rakesh Thapaliyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would however contend that the order of the learned Single Judge, to the extent he directed that the respondents-writ petitioners should be continued in service on a contractual basis subject to their assessment of work, was contrary to law; the very nature of a contractual appointment is that the services of an employee are engaged for a limited duration; the employer is always entitled not to continue the services of the said employee on completion of the contractual period; the learned Single Judge could not have issued a mandamus to the appellant to continue employees on contractual basis; and the Institute, while disengaging the services of the respondents-writ petitioners since their period of contract came to end on 30.01.2018, would consider their claim for compassionate appointment, in terms of the revised policy of the Institute dated 04.01.2018, as and when vacancies arise. Learned counsel would rely on Indian Literacy Board and others Vs. Veena Chaturvedi and others, (2005) 3 SCC 79 , Director, Institute of Management Development Vs. Pushpa Srivastava (1992) 4 SCC 33 , Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayantlal Vaghela and Others (2006) 2 SCC 482 , Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe (R) and Another Vs. S.B. Gupta and Another (2005) 7 SCC 524 and Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Madhusudan Das and Others (2008) 15 SCC 560 . He has also relied on the order of Supreme Court in the State Bank of India & Others Vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari (order in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30335 of 2017 dated 08.02.2019). 10. S.B. Gupta and Another (2005) 7 SCC 524 and Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Madhusudan Das and Others (2008) 15 SCC 560 . He has also relied on the order of Supreme Court in the State Bank of India & Others Vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari (order in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30335 of 2017 dated 08.02.2019). 10. On the other hand, both Shri Shobhit Saharia and Shri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would submit that the initial order, appointing the petitioners on contract basis, itself provides that they would be considered for regular appointment, on compassionate grounds, as and when vacancies arise; an advertisement was issued by the appellant on 04.11.2016 whereby 51 vacancies were sought to be filled up in Group ‘C’ posts; the interim order passed by this court, in WPSS No. 2770 of 2017 dated 14.11.2017, required the appellants not to fill up 9 posts (since the petitioners in the said writ petition were 9 in number); the petitioners reliably learn that none of the 51 Group ‘C’ posts, advertised on 04.11.2016, were filled up; thereafter a fresh advertisement was issued on 06.03.2018 wherein 33 Group ‘C’ posts were sought to be filled up; the petitioners reliably learn that none of these posts have also been filled up; a cap or limit of 5% of the vacancies, to make compassionate appointments, was imposed by the Board of Governors of the Institute only in its meeting held on 04.01.2018; the petitioners were appointed on contract basis during the year 2012 to 2015; since 51 Group ‘C’ posts were sought to be filled up by the advertisement dated 4.11.2016, all the petitioners (21 in number) could have been appointed on compassionate grounds against these posts; the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of the subsequent Board of Governors resolution dated 04.01.2018, since the said resolution (2018 policy) would apply only for vacancies which arose thereafter, and not prior thereto; and since several vacancies arose after the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis, they ought to have been considered for regular appointment both in terms of the 2002 policy as well as the conditions stipulated in their offer of appointment itself. 11. In Indian Literacy Board and others Vs. Veena Chaturvedi and others, (2005) 3 SCC 79 , Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe (R) and Another Vs. 11. In Indian Literacy Board and others Vs. Veena Chaturvedi and others, (2005) 3 SCC 79 , Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe (R) and Another Vs. S.B. Gupta and Another (2005) 7 SCC 524 , State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar: (2010) 11 SCC 661 , and V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of A.P.: (2008) 13 SCC 730 , the Supreme Court held that no mandamus could be issued for continuing a contractual appointee in service, where the contractual appointment is for a fixed term. Placing reliance on these judgments, Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge, directing continuance of the petitioners on contractual basis, is illegal and contrary to law. 12. In none of the aforesaid judgments was the Supreme Court called upon to examine the case of employees seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in regular vacancies, instead of being appointed on a contractual basis. It is not even the case of the appellants that the Supreme Court had, in the aforesaid judgments, considered contentions similar to those in the present case where the offer of appointment, on a contractual basis for a period of one year, itself stipulates that the candidature of the contractual appointees would be considered, for regular appointment on compassionate grounds, as and when vacancies arose. Reliance placed by Shri Rakesh Thapliyal on the aforesaid judgments is, therefore, of no avail. 13. In Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Madhusudan Das and Others (2008) 15 SCC 560 , the Supreme Court observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right; it must be provided for in the Rules; the criteria laid down, that the death of the sole bread earner of the family must be established, is meant to provide for a minimum relief; the constitutional philosophy, behind making such scheme, should be taken into consideration; Section 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered, for compassionate appointment, against posts which had fallen vacant; and appointment, on compassionate grounds, was an exception to the said Rule. The law declared in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Madhusudan Das and Others (2008) 15 SCC 560 would, undoubtedly, apply to all cases of compassionate appointments. The law declared in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Madhusudan Das and Others (2008) 15 SCC 560 would, undoubtedly, apply to all cases of compassionate appointments. It is only because the petitioners had fulfilled the criteria, laid down for compassionate appointment, were they offered compassionate appointment on a contractual basis, with the assurance that their candidature would be considered, for regular appointment, as and when regular vacancies arise. The very purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to provide succor to the family of the deceased, which is facing financial distress because of the demise of the sole bread winner. It does not, therefore, stand to reason that, having come to the aid of the distressed family, albeit only by providing the dependant appointment on a contractual basis, the appellant-Institute should be permitted to terminate such contractual appointments after a few years and thereby deprive the deceased’s family of their source of livelihood, while at the same time promising to appoint them on compassionate grounds in regular vacancies later, as and when they choose to fill them up. 14. The next contention which necessitates examination is the submission of Shri Rakesh Thapliyal that, in the light of the new policy framed by the Board of Governors of the appellant in its meeting held on 04.01.2018, only 5% of the available vacancies are required to be filled up by making appointment on compassionate grounds; and the remaining vacancies would be unavailable for compassionate appointments. 15. As noted hereinabove, all the petitioners herein were appointed during the years 2012-2015, long before the 2018 policy came into force on the Board of Governors of the appellant framing such a policy in its meeting held on 04.01.2018. While the earlier policy framed in the year 2002, and clarified in the year 2003, did not prescribe any cap or limit for making compassionate appointment in the available vacancies, the 2018 policy stipulates such a restriction. Consequently, all existing vacancies which arose on or before 03.01.2018, (i.e. before the 2018 policy came into force on 04.01.2018), are required to be filled up in terms of the 2002 policy as clarified in 2003, and the 2018 policy would apply only in filling up the vacancies which arose on or after 04.01.2018, and not prior thereto. 16. Consequently, all existing vacancies which arose on or before 03.01.2018, (i.e. before the 2018 policy came into force on 04.01.2018), are required to be filled up in terms of the 2002 policy as clarified in 2003, and the 2018 policy would apply only in filling up the vacancies which arose on or after 04.01.2018, and not prior thereto. 16. While the respondents-writ petitioners claim that none of the vacancies, which were advertised on 04.11.2016 and later on 06.03.2018, have been filled up till date, Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellants, expresses ignorance, and states that he is unaware whether or not any of the advertised Group ‘C’ posts have been filled up till date. Learned counsel would, however, contend that, in the light of the order of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 , and MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakarvarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 58, only 5% of the vacancies, from out of the available vacancies, can be filled up on compassionate grounds in view of the 2018 policy which came into force on 04.01.2018, and the revised 2018 policy would apply in filling up all those posts which have not been regularly filled up by making appointment on compassionate grounds. 17. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellant, would rely on the order of reference of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Others Vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30335 of 2017 dated 08.02.2019) in this regard. In the said order of reference, the Supreme Court observed that, in Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 , the Supreme Court had noted its earlier judgments in State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 and MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakarvarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 , and had held that the cause of action, to be considered for compassionate appointment, arose when the earlier policy was in force in 1993, and the claim could not be decided as per the later 2005 Scheme which provided, instead, for ex-gratia payment. 18. The Supreme Court, in its order of reference in State Bank of India & Others Vs. 18. The Supreme Court, in its order of reference in State Bank of India & Others Vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30335 of 2017 dated 08.02.2019), was examining the case of an employee seeking compassionate appointment, whose application for compassionate appointment was still pending when the change in policy was effected. In view of the change in policy, the appellant had contended that the employee was only entitled for payment of ex-gratia, and not for appointment on compassionate grounds. Taking note of the conflicting judgment in Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 on the one hand, and MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakarvarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 and State Bank of India & Others Vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari on the other, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of at least three judges. Unlike in the order of reference, where the application for compassionate appointment was still pending when a change in the policy took place, in the present case, the respondents-writ petitioners’ claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the appellant and, as regular vacancies were not available then, all of them were appointed on contractual basis with the assurance that their contractual appointment would be renewed periodically, and they would be considered for compassionate appointment as and when vacancies arose. 19. We are satisfied, therefore, that, with regard to all such vacancies which arose before the new policy came into force on 04.01.2018, the case of the respondents-writ petitioners, for compassionate appointment, should be considered in terms of the 2002 policy as clarified in the year 2003 i.e. without any cap or limit on the available vacancies required to be filled up on compassionate grounds. However, for filling up all vacancies, which arose after the 2018 policy came into force on 04.01.2018, the 5% cap would apply, and the appellants would be obligated to fill up only 5% of the available vacancies, which arose on or after 04.01.2018, on compassionate grounds. 20. It is not in the interest of either the appellant or the respondents-writ petitioners for the latters’ services to be continued indefinitely on a contractual basis. 20. It is not in the interest of either the appellant or the respondents-writ petitioners for the latters’ services to be continued indefinitely on a contractual basis. Not only are the respondents-writ petitioners being paid a consolidated sum, instead of the regular pay-scales which they would be entitled on their being appointed on compassionate grounds in regular vacancies, the appellants are also not benefitted by not filling up the regular vacancies, and instead employing the respondents-writ petitioners on a contractual basis. 21. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that the appellant shall at the earliest, and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, consider the respondents-writ petitioners, for compassionate appointment, in all the existing vacancies which arose on or before 03.01.2018, and have not been filled up till date. They shall also fill up 5% of the available vacancies, which arose on or after 04.01.2018, by making compassionate appointment, of all eligible candidates, on a regular basis. Till regular appointments are made within the aforesaid period, as directed hereinabove, the respondents-writ petitioners shall be continued in service in terms of the order under appeal. 22. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.