JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. In this petition, a desperate plea for appointment under the die in harness scheme has been turned down by the authorities as being bound by a rigid law governing the field. 3. The petitioner is a claimant for compassionate appointment on the demise of her sister who was earlier serving in the Oriental Insurance Company, and who though married, was subsequently widowed without leaving any issue. The Company expressed inability to provide appointment to the petitioner on the ground that as per the rules the petitioner is not entitled to claim such appointment as her sister was married. 4. As we proceed to examine the issue, it will be apposite to refer to certain basic background facts a little more in detail. 5. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, possessing Master's Degree in English with MBA and other academic accomplishments, is the sister of one Grizelva Mahanta who was serving as a Stenographer Grade III in the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who died while in harness on 14.12.2016, who at the time of death was 53 years having more than 8 years of service to her credit before reaching the age of superannuation. 6. The petitioner's sister, Grizelva Mahanta was married but unfortunately her husband predeceased her in the year 1998 leaving behind no issue. It has been also stated that the relatives of the predeceased husband of Grizelva Mahanta are all married having sufficient means of income of their own and not dependent on Grizelva Mahanta and were living separately. 7. It is also claimed that the petitioner's sister Grizelva Mahanta was staying with her parent's family consisting of the present petitioner, her unmarried sister and their mother. Grizelva Mahanta, the petitioner's sister was thus looking after the family consisting of the petitioner, her sister, both unmarried, and their mother and they were wholly dependent upon Grizelva Mahanta for their livelihood. In fact, late Grizelva Mahanta nominated her mother in various nomination forms so submitted with the respondent Company. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner, being well educated and eligible, applied for appointment to a post under the die in harness scheme. 8. In fact, late Grizelva Mahanta nominated her mother in various nomination forms so submitted with the respondent Company. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner, being well educated and eligible, applied for appointment to a post under the die in harness scheme. 8. The authorities though expressed sympathy to the plea of the petitioner expressed regret in not entertaining the petitioner's request vide letter dated 22.03.2018 stating that as per records her sister was married to Mr. Arun Chandra Sarma on 3.10.1987 because of which the petitioner is not eligible for appointment under the scheme. 9. It has been contended by the respondent Company that since the employee concerned, i.e., the petitioner's sister was married, the scheme will not be applicable to the petitioner. 10. Furthermore, it has been stated that after the death of Grizelva Mahanta, the mother of the deceased, being her nominee had received a large amount towards terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 45,10,588/- which would disentitle her to any claim for compassionate appointment. The details of the financial benefits given to the family members of the deceased employee are as follows. (i) Provident Fund Rs. 19,24,445/- (ii) Gratuity Rs. 10,53,920/- (iii) Leave encashment Rs. 5,82,234/- (iv) Group Insurance Scheme Rs. 1,00,000/- (v) Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme Rs. 7,33,951/- Total Rs. 45,10,588/- It has been accordingly contended that the petitioner or her relatives cannot be said to be in acute financial position so as to entitle appointment under the die in harness scheme. 11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. 12. Before we proceed to examine the issues, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant rules governing the Scheme. As per the "Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector General Insurance Companies", as applicable in the present case, the benefit can be granted to a dependent family member of a permanent employee of a Public Sector General Insurance Company (PSGIC) who dies in service (including death by suicide) or is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. It has been further provided under para 1 of the Scheme that for the purpose of the Scheme, an "employee" would mean and include only a confirmed regular employee who was serving full-time or part-time on scale wages, at the time of death/ retirement on medical grounds, before reaching the age of 55 years and does not include anyone engaged on contract/ temporary/ casual or any person who is paid on commission basis. As provided under para 2 of the said Scheme, a "dependent family member" of the employee who died while in service means as follows: "2.1 Spouse 2.2 Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or 2.3 Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or 2.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee." 13. As evident from the above, two issues have been raised by the respondents. Firstly, that the petitioner is not eligible under the scheme because of the fact that the petitioner's sister was a married employee of the company and hence, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment. Secondly, considering the large financial benefits already received by the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner is not suitable to be given the benefit of appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. 14. As can be seen, the second issue relates to the financial position of the petitioner's family which will become relevant only when the petitioner is considered eligible for appointment under the die in harness scheme. If the petitioner is not eligible at all under the scheme, the issue of the financial position of the family becomes irrelevant. It is, therefore, necessary that the first objection raised by the respondents be decided at the outset. 15. Compassionate appointment is, by its very nature, to tide over difficulties faced by dependent family members because of sudden death of the earning member of the family, by giving a preferential treatment to the bereaved dependent family members of a government employee/ public servant as an exception to the general rule that public employment is to be made by giving opportunity to all eligible candidates by way of open competition. In compassionate appointment, such open competition is done away with and the deserving claimant is given appointment without going through the competitive recruitment process, but based on the parameters laid down under the scheme. In compassionate appointment, such open competition is done away with and the deserving claimant is given appointment without going through the competitive recruitment process, but based on the parameters laid down under the scheme. While the filial relationship of the claimant with the deceased employee will always remain a material factor to be considered, what is of importance is that such benefit is granted only to the dependent family members. This is borne by the fact that while describing who the dependent family members are under the Scheme, the expression "wholly dependent" has been used before all the relatives, except the spouse. Thus, the claimant is qualified by the adjective, "wholly dependent" on the employee. Thus, in considering the claim for compassionate appointment, two aspects of the applicant have to be considered. Firstly, as to whether the claimant is a family member of the deceased employee within the meaning of the scheme? and, Secondly, as to whether such family member was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee within the meaning of the scheme? Only when these two conditions are satisfied, the appointing authority will consider any claim for appointment keeping in mind the financial condition of the claimant. 16. In the present case, the petitioner, the claimant for compassionate appointment, is neither the spouse or dependent son or daughter of the deceased employee. The petitioner claims to be the dependent sister of the deceased employee. But the stumbling block before her, as contended by the respondent Company, is that her sister was married and not unmarried, as provided under sub-para 2.4 of the Scheme, as quoted above, and as such the petitioner cannot be said to be a dependent family member within the meaning of the aforesaid expression assigned in the Scheme. The stand of the respondents is that had the petitioner's sister been unmarried, the petitioner would have been eligible to apply for appointment under the scheme if she was wholly dependent upon her sister. 17. It is under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has argued that this insistence in the scheme that the deceased employee has to be unmarried for the dependent petitioner to be eligible for appointment is unconstitutional and discriminative since the petitioner, her sister and mother were wholly dependent upon her deceased sister. 18. 17. It is under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has argued that this insistence in the scheme that the deceased employee has to be unmarried for the dependent petitioner to be eligible for appointment is unconstitutional and discriminative since the petitioner, her sister and mother were wholly dependent upon her deceased sister. 18. It is now well recognised that by the very nature of the scheme for compassionate appointment, the benefit is to be given to a dependent family member. Thus, the claimant must first and foremost be a family member of the deceased employee and secondly, he or she must be dependent on the deceased employee. 19. As to who is a "family member" in law, the definition would vary from statute to statue or scheme to scheme for the purpose for which the statute has been enacted/framed though it is generally confined to the immediate family member. For example, under CCS (Pension) Rules, for grant of family pension, "family" in relation to a government servant means, (i) wife in the case of a male government servant, or husband in case of a female government servant, (ii) judicially separated wife or husband, (iii) son who has not attained is of 25 years and unmarried daughter who has not attained is of 25 years, including such son and daughter adopted legally. It may be mentioned that under the CCS Pension Rules, there is no provision for grant of family pension to a brother or sister of the deceased employee. However, even in matters relating to family pension, the scope of the term "family" has been expanded as in the case of Railways employees by including dependent brother or sister of the Railways employee. However, even in matters relating to family pension, the scope of the term "family" has been expanded as in the case of Railways employees by including dependent brother or sister of the Railways employee. As per Clause 19(b) of the Pension Manual for the Railways employees "family" has been defined as follows: "19(b) "family", in relation to railway servant, means- (i) wife in the case of a male railway servant or husband in the case of a female railway servant; (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery; (iii) unmarried son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally; (iv) dependent parents: (v) dependent disabled siblings (i.e. brother or sister) of a railway servants." It is well known that family pension is also another kind of beneficial scheme for extending financial benefits to dependent family members on the death of the employee. As seen from above, while in some cases, as in the case of central government employees, dependent brother and sister may not be eligible to get family pension, the same has been extended in case of Railway employees. In respect of appointments under the die in harness scheme, the benefit is also generally extended to dependent brother or sister of the deceased employee. Under the die in harness scheme as applicable to Public Sector General Insurance Companies, a wholly dependent brother or sister in case of unmarried employee is eligible to apply. Similarly, in the State of Tripura an unmarried brother or sister of the employee is eligible to apply for appointment under the die in harness scheme. As per Notification of the "Scheme for Compassionate Appointment/ Benefit for Government Employees of Tripura", dependent family member would include unmarried brother or sister as follows: "2.6. Similarly, in the State of Tripura an unmarried brother or sister of the employee is eligible to apply for appointment under the die in harness scheme. As per Notification of the "Scheme for Compassionate Appointment/ Benefit for Government Employees of Tripura", dependent family member would include unmarried brother or sister as follows: "2.6. "Dependent family members" shall cover the following:- (i) Wife or husband, as the case may be, (ii) Legitimate children, (iii) Legitimate stepchildren, (iv) Adopted children, (v) Dependent daughter in-law, (vi) Dependent parents, (vii) Dependent unmarried brother, (viii) Dependent unmarried sister, (ix) Dependent widowed daughter and (x) Dependent legally divorcee daughter." Similarly, as per "West Bengal Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2013", brother or sister in case of death in harness of an unmarried employee is eligible for applying for compassionate appointment provided his/her parent, all the brothers and sisters were fully dependent on him/her. Thus it is seen that brother or sister of the deceased employee is also generally eligible for appointment under the die in harness scheme provided the deceased employee was unmarried and the applicant was wholly dependent on the deceased employee. However, this principle is not of universal application, as in the case of the State of Tripura it is not insisted that the deceased employee must be unmarried. 20. In the present case, the response of the respondent Company is understandable, that the Company cannot go beyond the provisions of the scheme as it clearly disentitles any brother or sister of a married deceased employee to be considered for appointment under the scheme. The reason for not making them eligible is not far to seek. Under the prevailing social norms, normally after the marriage, a person establishes a family of his/her own and the immediate family members generally consists of the spouse and children. In respect of a woman, after her marriage, she normally would stay in the marital home, away from her siblings, brothers and sisters, by severing the domestic ties from the parental family and becomes part of the family of the husband, though the filial relationship with the parental home never gets disrupted. Thus, under normal circumstances, in respect of a married woman, her husband or her children would be the immediate family members. Thus, under normal circumstances, in respect of a married woman, her husband or her children would be the immediate family members. It is because of this reason that in all the die harness schemes, the dependent spouse and son or daughter are invariably considered to be family members entitled to apply for compassionate appointment. Since a married employee is normally expected to have a spouse and a son or daughter, they are made "family members" for the purpose of appointment under the die in harness scheme. It is when the employee is unmarried then the natural and logical inference would be that the deceased employee would not have any spouse and son or daughter. In such a situation, the brother and sister of such unmarried employee are treated to be a family members of the unmarried employee for the purpose of appointment under the die in harness scheme. Thus, the commonly accepted rationale for including brother and sister as family members of an unmarried employee is the supposition that an unmarried employee cannot be expected to have spouse or son or daughter who would otherwise have better claim than the brother or sister of the deceased employee. It is for this reason that in respect of an unmarried deceased employee, the benefit of appointment under the die in harness scheme has been extended to the brother and sister of the deceased unmarried employee. Though the aforesaid benefit extended to a dependent brother or sister of an unmarried employee appears to be reasonable and justifiable, denial of such benefit to a brother or sister of a married employee, who is divorced and did not leave behind any issue, may however, cause injustice as in the present case. 21. As mentioned above, the petitioner's sister though was married, her husband had predeceased her about two decades ago (18 years) without leaving any issue. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the death of her husband, the petitioner's sister was staying with her mother and sisters (including the petitioner) and she was looking after them and hence, all of them were wholly dependent upon her. Under the circumstances, the position of the petitioner's sister, though was married, after becoming widowed, and in absence of any issue, is not different from the position of an unmarried woman. Her position is as good as that of an unmarried woman. Under the circumstances, the position of the petitioner's sister, though was married, after becoming widowed, and in absence of any issue, is not different from the position of an unmarried woman. Her position is as good as that of an unmarried woman. Just like an unmarried woman who does not leave behind spouse or children, the petitioner's sister who was widowed and was issueless did not leave behind any spouse or children. Thus, for all practical purposes, the condition of the sister of the petitioner as "married employee" did not materially differ from a position of an "unmarried employee". In such a situation, if the brother or sister of an unmarried employee is eligible for compassionate appointment, certainly the brother or sister of a "married" but widowed employee who left behind no spouse or issues and staying with her own siblings in the parental home, being similarly situated, ought to be allowed to apply for compassionate appointment. The matter would have been otherwise, if the rules do not permit appointment of brother or sister at all, as in the case of family pension normally brothers and sisters of employees are kept out of purview for the purpose of grant of family pension. In the opinion of this Court, the situation would be similar in case of a married male employee also, who is predeceased by his wife, and without having any issue. In such cases also, the male employee even if "married" would be similarly situated as an "unmarried" female employee. 22. If we analyse the scope of the expression "dependent family member" as contemplated under the scheme as applicable in the present case, it has brought within its purview only the following members as "dependent family members", namely, 1. Spouse, 2. Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son), 3. Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter), 4. Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee. A close look of the aforesaid definition indicates that while all the other close relatives, viz., son or daughter or brother or sister have been qualified by the words "wholly dependent", this qualification is conspicuously absent when being used for the "spouse", the indication being that the spouse would naturally be wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. A close look of the aforesaid definition indicates that while all the other close relatives, viz., son or daughter or brother or sister have been qualified by the words "wholly dependent", this qualification is conspicuously absent when being used for the "spouse", the indication being that the spouse would naturally be wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. Given the plain meaning to the word "spouse", it would also cover a "spouse" who may have been estranged/judicially separated and not wholly dependent at all on the deceased employee. However, since the word "spouse" has not been circumscribed by the expression "wholly dependent" as in the case of other kith and kin, even if a spouse was not living together and not wholly dependent upon the deceased employee he/she would still be eligible to apply for compassionate appointment. It is a different matter that such case may be rejected after considering other parameters. But, application of such spouse cannot be rejected on the threshold. The reason is not too far to seek. It is for the reason that generally and ordinarily, a spouse would be presumed to be "wholly dependent" upon the other earning spouse/employee, even if the expression "wholly dependent" is not used in respect of spouse. It is also for similar reason that generally and ordinarily, if an employee is married, he/she would have a partner/spouse with son or daughter, in which event, in respect of a married employee the categories of dependent family members as mentioned, viz., (i) spouse, (ii) wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son), (iii) wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter) would normally be eligible to claim for compassionate appointment. When this class of family members are in existence, extending the benefit of appointment to the brother and sister does not arise as preference for appointment for obvious reasons, has to be given to the surviving spouse and children who are the closest relatives of a deceased employee. It is only when the employee is unmarried that the aforesaid category of "dependent" family members i.e., spouse and children will not be available, because of which that the benefit is extended to the brothers and sisters of the deceased employee. It is only when the employee is unmarried that the aforesaid category of "dependent" family members i.e., spouse and children will not be available, because of which that the benefit is extended to the brothers and sisters of the deceased employee. Thus, the presumption is that if the employee was married, he/she would have a spouse, son or daughter as the case may be, who are covered by categories under Sub-para 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of Para 2 of the Scheme referred to above. It is for this reason that only when the employee is not married and hence is not expected to have spouse or son or daughter that the brother or sister would become eligible. But in such a situation, where the deceased employee, though married did not leave behind any spouse or son or daughter, should a wholly dependent brother or sister be disentitled and debarred from claiming compassionate appointment? This is the claim and issue raised by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, a wholly dependent brother or sister of such "married" employee ought to be also allowed to apply for compassionate appointment. 23. It could, however, be argued that by doing so, the Court is overlooking the specific provision under the scheme of the word, "unmarried" qualifying the word "employee", thus it would amount to ignoring the plain meaning of the expression "unmarried employee" and such an interpretation may not be permissible. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid interpretational bar could be overcome if we apply a purposive interpretation keeping in mind the purpose behind the beneficial nature of the scheme, which is to tide over financial difficulties and provide succour to the bereaved dependent family members of a deceased employee. In the opinion of this Court one can interpret the expression "unmarried employee" to mean also any employee who though might have been married but did not leave any living spouse or son or daughter at the time of death for the reasons already discussed above. Such widowed and issueless employee can be for all practical purposes be deemed to be unmarried for the purpose of grant of benefit to his/her dependent brother or sister under the beneficial scheme of compassionate appointment. 24. Such widowed and issueless employee can be for all practical purposes be deemed to be unmarried for the purpose of grant of benefit to his/her dependent brother or sister under the beneficial scheme of compassionate appointment. 24. This Court is inclined to take this view for the reason that the primary purpose for giving appointment under the die in harness scheme is to render certain benefits to the immediate and close family members who were wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. The intended beneficial purpose of the scheme will be served if this approach is adopted. It may be also observed that this category of family members, viz. brother and sister is, per se, not wholly excluded from the scheme. These dependent family members of sister and brother under this category are entitled on their own in the event the deceased employee was "unmarried". Thus, this category is, otherwise, not foreign to the scheme. This category however, has been excluded only if the deceased employee was married, but such dependent family members will be eligible for the benefit under the scheme if the deceased employee is unmarried. 25. While taking this view this Court has kept in mind the beneficial nature of the scheme which is to provide assistance to the wholly dependent immediate family members as mentioned in the scheme. The emphasis as also can be seen from the scheme is that such close family members must be "wholly dependent" on the deceased employee. Emphasis is given on the condition of the close family members, that is, they must have been wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. Thus, merely because the married employee had left behind sons or daughters, they would not be eligible for applying for appointment under the scheme if they were "not" "wholly dependent" upon the deceased employee. What is being emphasised and underscored under the scheme is that such close family members must have been "wholly dependent" on the deceased employee. Thus, this dependency factor is perhaps a critical and perhaps also a deciding factor for extending this benefit. Even if the claimant is amongst the eligible category of claimants, if he/she is not "wholly dependent" on the deceased employee, the claim cannot be entertained. Thus, this dependency factor is perhaps a critical and perhaps also a deciding factor for extending this benefit. Even if the claimant is amongst the eligible category of claimants, if he/she is not "wholly dependent" on the deceased employee, the claim cannot be entertained. In that view of the matter, if the brother or sister was also "wholly dependent" on the deceased employee who though married, yet was widowed and did not leave any issue, such wholly dependent brother or sister, in the opinion of this Court, would be eligible for applying for appointment under the Scheme. 26. We can examine the issue from another perspective. While this categorisation of brother and sister of an unmarried deceased employee as a class in itself to be distinct and different from the other category of brother and sister of a married deceased employee, does appear to be a reasonable classification, based on the marital status of the deceased employee, on minute examination, it does not really pass the test of reasonable classification as permissible under the law. As is well settled, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law, prohibits any discriminatory treatment towards the equals by treating equals as unequals. 27. The Scheme under consideration has created two categories of brothers and sisters of a deceased employee, one category consisting of brothers and sisters of a deceased unmarried employee and another category consisting of brothers and sisters of a deceased married employee and treating them differently, by allowing one category to apply for appointment under die in harness scheme and disallowing another category of brother and sisters of married deceased employee. Whether this classification of brothers and sisters into two categories, conferring a benefit to one category and denying the same to another, can be said to be permissible or not, has to be examined on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is now well settled that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but not reasonable classification. As to what amounts to reasonable classification can be ascertained by applying the twin test, namely, that, (i) the classification must be founded on a criterion of intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from those left out, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. As to what amounts to reasonable classification can be ascertained by applying the twin test, namely, that, (i) the classification must be founded on a criterion of intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from those left out, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the legislation are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. 28. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045 : AIR 1955 SC 191 : 1955 Cri LJ 374 wherein it was held as follows: 5. The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India,1950 1 SCR 869, State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara,1951 2 SCR 682, State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,1952 3 SCR 284, Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra,1952 3 SCR 435, LachmandasKewalram Ahuja v. State of Bombay,1952 3 SCR 710 and Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad, (1953) AIR SC 156 ; (1953) 4 SCR 581 and Habeeb Mohamad v. State of Hyderabad,1953 4 SCR 661. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the article in question. It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure " 29. In the present case the differentia is that the category of brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased employee are eligible to apply for compassionate appointment, and the other category of brothers and sisters of a married deceased employee are not eligible for compassionate appointment. Thus, the differentia is clearly discernible. One set of brother and sister of an unmarried deceased employee and another set of bother and sister of a married deceased employee. We have to now examine whether this differentia has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. In the present case, the object of the scheme is to provide assistance to the dependent family members of a deceased employee. As mentioned above, the brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased employee are made eligible for appointment under the Scheme for the reason that an unmarried deceased employee cannot be expected to have any spouse or any son or daughter who are the preferred family members for appointment under the scheme. For the same reason, brother and sister of a married deceased employee are not made eligible for appointment under the scheme on the ground that the deceased married employee would normally have a spouse and son or daughter, in which event, the benefit cannot be extended to the brother or sister. Apparently, though this classification seems to be reasonable, on a closer scrutiny, it is found to be not so, as in the present case, and this classification cannot be said to have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. We have already seen that the deceased sister of the petitioner, though married did not leave behind any spouse as her husband predeceased her and she also did not have any son or daughter. We have already seen that the deceased sister of the petitioner, though married did not leave behind any spouse as her husband predeceased her and she also did not have any son or daughter. Under such circumstances, where the deceased employee did not leave behind any spouse or son or daughter, depriving the benefit of opportunity of appointment under the scheme to the brother and sister of such deceased married employee, who were wholly dependent on her, would clearly do great injustice to such brother and sister as in the present case. As we have already discussed above, the purpose of this beneficial scheme is to render assistance to the dependent family members on the death of the deceased employee. By denying opportunity to apply for compassionate appointment under the scheme to the dependent brother and sister of a deceased married woman, who died as an issueless widow, it certainly cannot be said to be in consonance with the avowed policy of giving financial assistance by appointment to the dependent family members of the deceased employee. The object of compassionate appointment, as we have noticed earlier, is to save a family from economic distress and to provide succour in the time of need. It must, therefore, be examined whether the differentia is intelligible and reasonable, if so, whether such differentia has any rational nexus with the object of the policy for compassionate appointment. Seen from this perspective, though the aforesaid classification does seem to be reasonable yet it does not seem to have any reasonable or rational nexus with the avowed purpose of such classification. If the avowed purpose is to give assistance to the wholly dependent family members of a deceased employee, one fails to understand, why one category of brothers and sisters, if wholly dependent upon the deceased employee, should be deprived of the benefit of compassionate appointment merely because their brother/sister employee was married, when brothers and sisters of an unmarried employee are made eligible for appointment under the Scheme. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid classification does not overcome the test of reasonable classification having intelligible differentia as it cannot be said to have a reasonable nexus to the purpose of the Scheme, hence such classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid classification does not overcome the test of reasonable classification having intelligible differentia as it cannot be said to have a reasonable nexus to the purpose of the Scheme, hence such classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. One similarly situated category of wholly dependent family members have been denied the benefit only on account of the marital status of the deceased employee which has no reasonable nexus with the purpose of the legislation, that is, to offer assistance to the dependent family members of a deceased employee. 30. To examine the issue further, as noticed earlier, the main objective of offering appointment under the enhanced scheme is to provide financial stability to the immediate bereaved and dependent members of the deceased employee. For this purpose, it is important to identify the category of persons who would be entitled to the benefit of appointment under the scheme. For obvious reasons, this group of persons ought to be the immediate family members who would normally consist of the spouse, children and other siblings. While the spouse, son and daughter are without exception and universally accepted as the closest and immediate family members of the deceased employee, who would be entitled to appointment under the scheme, the benefit has been also extended to the brother and sister of a deceased unmarried employee as can be seen from above. Since brother and sister as a category otherwise have been accepted to be eligible claimant for appointment under the scheme on the basis that they were dependent on the deceased unmarried employee, it would be unreasonable to deny such benefit to the brother and sister of a deceased employee merely because the deceased employee happened to be married though, in fact, such deceased married employee did not leave behind any spouse or son or daughter and such brother and sister were dependent upon the deceased employee. Thus, this Court would hold that under such circumstance, the brother or sister of an employee who though was married but did not leave behind any spouse or son or daughter at the time of his/her death, cannot be considered to be different from the brother and sister of a deceased unmarried women for the purpose of appointment under the scheme. The brother and sister of such deceased employees irrespective of the marital status must be treated to belong to the same category and cannot be differentiated as sought to be done under the scheme which would offend Article 14 of the Constitution. 31. Under such circumstances, the aforesaid definition of dependent family member as provided under Sub-para 2.4 of Para 2 of the Scheme by excluding wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of married employee will be illegal and unconstitutional and void being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as provided under Article 13 of the Constitution. However, if the aforesaid interpretation adopted by this Court is accepted by reading into the expression "unmarried employee" also "an employee though married but did not leave behind any spouse or son or daughter at the time of death", such a vice can be cured. 32. It may be also noted that dependency and being a member of the family are prime considerations to be taken into account in a beneficial scheme like compassionate appointment and marital status of the deceased employee ought not to be the determining factor. It may be also observed that the scheme is silent on the marital status of the claimant brother and sister of an unmarried deceased employee. It makes no distinction between the married and unmarried sister of a deceased unmarried employee. Let us assume that the unmarried employee had a married sister, who then most probably would be staying in the marital house of her husband and thus severing the domestic relationship from the parental home. Yet, as there is no such restriction placed on such married sister to apply for appointment under the die in harness scheme on the death of her deceased unmarried sister and she can also apply for compassionate appointment even if she is married, though the employee himself or herself may not have married. The only other condition to be fulfilled is that such "married" sister or brother was wholly dependent upon the deceased unmarried employee. From the above, it is clearly evident that "dependency" takes precedence over the marital status of the claimant and also of the marital status of the source of the claim, that is, the deceased employee. The only other condition to be fulfilled is that such "married" sister or brother was wholly dependent upon the deceased unmarried employee. From the above, it is clearly evident that "dependency" takes precedence over the marital status of the claimant and also of the marital status of the source of the claim, that is, the deceased employee. Thus, if dependency is a prime consideration for appointment under the die in harness scheme in respect of a deceased unmarried woman, dependency on such married deceased employee should also continue to be the prime consideration for appointment in respect of the dependent brother or sister of an otherwise married deceased employee as in the case of the present petitioner. 33. As clearly stated in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, the values and principles which underlie many of the acts and legislations are to secure social justice. In the opinion of this Court, by interpreting the expression "unmarried employee" to include "an employee, though was married, but was widowed and issueless at the time of death", such an interpretation would conform to the core Constitutional values and principles and help secure social justice. On the other hand, denying benefit to the brother and sister on the ground that the deceased employee was married, would cause injustice to them. 34. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner is declared eligible for applying for appointment under the die in harness scheme even if her sister, the deceased employee, was legally and technically "married" as she was for all practical purposes, as good as "unmarried", in the opinion of this Court, by enlarging the scope of Subpara 2.4 of Para 2 of the Scheme. 35. That takes us to the next issue raised by the respondent Company. It has been contended that the mother of the petitioner had received a large amount of financial benefits to the tune of about Rs. 45 lakhs and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner and her family are in a state of penury and hence, the petitioner is disentitled to get compassionate appointment. The aforesaid contention of the respondent Company is noted only to be rejected. 36. 45 lakhs and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner and her family are in a state of penury and hence, the petitioner is disentitled to get compassionate appointment. The aforesaid contention of the respondent Company is noted only to be rejected. 36. As per the Scheme as noted above, this benefit is extended only to the regular employees who were serving full-time or part-time on scale wages at the time of death/ retirement on medical grounds and does not include anyone engaged on contract/temporary/casual or any person who is paid on commission basis. If the aforesaid Scheme is to be applied to a regular employee as mentioned above, and not to a contract/temporary/casual employee, it would naturally be expected that such regular employee would be entitled to certain financial benefits as in the case of the petitioner's sister. Such financial benefit cannot be unique to the petitioner's sister only but will apply to all other regular employees whose dependent family member would be eligible to apply for compassionate appointment. If the petitioner's sister had been serving on contract/temporary/casual basis, perhaps such large amount of financial benefits could not have accrued in her favour and if the deceased had been a contract /temporary/casual employee, her case would not come within the purview of the Scheme. The aforesaid financial benefits accruing would be on account of the long service rendered by the petitioner's sister as in the case of any other regular deceased employee. The petitioner cannot be put to a disadvantageous position merely because of the efficient financial planning and management made by her sister during her lifetime to save for the future. Of course, such financial condition could be taken into account for the purpose of assessing comparative claims, in the event there is more than one claimant for appointment under the scheme. In such a situation, a claimant with lesser financial position could perhaps be given preference at the time of giving appointment under the scheme. But such accruing of financial benefit on account of the diligent financial management by the deceased employee or as entitled as per rules cannot be a ground to reject the claim for appointment under the die in harness scheme at the threshold, if the claimant otherwise fulfils the conditions mentioned under the scheme. But such accruing of financial benefit on account of the diligent financial management by the deceased employee or as entitled as per rules cannot be a ground to reject the claim for appointment under the die in harness scheme at the threshold, if the claimant otherwise fulfils the conditions mentioned under the scheme. Accordingly, this Court would hold that, merely because the mother of the petitioner had received a sum of about Rs. 45 lakhs towards provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance scheme, group saving linked insurance scheme of the deceased employee, it cannot be a reason for denying appointment under the die in harness scheme. 37. Resultantly, for the reasons discussed above, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities will accept the application of the petitioner for appointment under the die in harness scheme submitted by the petitioner on 05.01.2017 by treating her to be eligible for applying for compassionate appointment and her claim shall be considered in accordance with law. Her case also shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the mother of the petitioner had received a sum of about Rs. 45 lakhs. Her case also cannot be rejected on the ground of delay or being over-aged as the petitioner had submitted her application within time on 05.01.2017. The respondent authorities will accordingly consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the observations and directions referred to above, which exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, by intimating the result of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In order to facilitate expeditious consideration of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit a fresh application in the prescribed form, if any, with the supporting documents along with a certified copy of this order.