JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, for the following main reliefs:- "1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.04.2017 and Rejection Order dated 23.07.2015 passed by O.P. No. 4 Assistant General Manager, Lucknow, contained Annexure No. 1 and 9 to the writ petition. 2. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Opp. Parties to consider the case of the petitioner for Appointment under Scheme for Compassionate Appointment dated 09.10.1998, in the interest of Justice." 3. The brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner was working in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. on the post of Phone Mechanic. On 15.07.2005, the father of the petitioner died and the petitioner moved an application dated 23.02.2006 for compassionate appointment before the General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Faizabad and the same was forwarded to the Chief General Manager, Telecom, U.P. (East) Circle, Lucknow. Thereafter, vide letter/order dated 21.01.2018, the High Power Committee rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order dated 21.01.2018, the petitioner filed the Original Application No. 404 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") and the same was allowed by the order dated 06.05.2011. The Tribunal directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in view of Circular dated 09.10.1998. The relevant portion of the order dated 06.05.2011, is reproduced below:- "Finally, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this O.A. deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 21.1.2008 (Annexure -1) alongwith minutes of the High Power Committee dated 11.12.2007 passed by the respondent authorities, so far it relates to the applicant, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh in view of the relevant O.M./circulars which were in force at the relevant time, ignoring the subsequent circular letter dated 27.06.2007 which cannot have retrospective effect. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh in view of the relevant O.M./circulars which were in force at the relevant time, ignoring the subsequent circular letter dated 27.06.2007 which cannot have retrospective effect. As the matter is already become quite old, it is desirable that this matter is finalized within a reasonable period say within 6 months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced by the applicant to the respondents. No order as to costs." 4. Thereafter, the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 404 of 2009, was challenged by the opposite parties by filing Writ Petition No.1877(SB) of 2011 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus Amit Kumar Singh) and the same was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2011, which reads as under:- "We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, submitted that the direction to reconsider the case of respondent as given vide the impugned order is contrary to a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (State Bank of India & Others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 1 ESC 66 (SC)) which has laid down the ratio that unless the financial condition is entirely penury, compassionate appointment cannot be made. In the said case, the financial condition of the applicant was not found to be one of destitution and besides the Bank had already paid a sum of Rs. 4,57,607.00 as terminal benefits apart from payment of a pensionary benefit of Rs. 2055/- per month. On a careful consideration of rival submissions, we do not find any merit in the case for the reason that the Tribunal has only directed the Corporation to reconsider the case of the respondent and has not issued any direction to give appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, the Writ Petition is dismissed." 5. Thereafter, the opposite parties challenged the order of this Court dated 03.11.2011 by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13043 of 2012 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner, in relation to appointment on compassionate ground, submitted the representation before the concerned authorities alongwith the orders of this Court, but no action was taken by them. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 58 of 2015 before the Tribunal and thereafter the opposite party no. Thereafter, the petitioner, in relation to appointment on compassionate ground, submitted the representation before the concerned authorities alongwith the orders of this Court, but no action was taken by them. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 58 of 2015 before the Tribunal and thereafter the opposite party no. 4 rejected the representation/application of the petitioner by its order dated 23.07.2015. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2015, the petitioner preferred a claim petition O.A. No. 475 of 2015 under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, before the Tribunal, with the following reliefs:- "1. Issuing/passing of an order or direction setting aside the impugned decision dated 23.07.2015 passed by the respondent No. 4 communicated vide letter/order dated 04.08.2015, issued by the respondent No. 3 (as contained in Annexure No. A-1), after summoning the original records. 2. Issuing/passing of an order or direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds and to appoint the applicant on any post according to his eligibility and educational qualification, etc. within a period of two months." 7. Tribunal after considering the pleadings given by the learned Counsel for the parties and on the material on record, vide order dated 12.04.2017, dismissed the claim petition . The relevant portion of the order dated 12.04.2017, is reproduced below:- "15. After taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties, this Tribunal is of the view that this petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed on following grounds: (i) that the applicant's family received the terminal benefits of approximately six lakh coupled with family pension of more than three thousand per month apart from D.A. (ii) the fact that the income from the cultivation is Rs. 3000/- per month has not been rebutted and the same was based on the report of Revenue Authorities i.e. SDE (HRD) Faizabad. Same was also reflected in the income certificate issued by the Tehshildar, Amdbedkarnagar. (iii) the applicant's family purchased a house as is evident from the report after the death of the deceased employee. (iv) both the sons are major and the applicant is residing in a rented accommodation near township of NTPC, Ambedkarnagar on monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- which shows that the applicant has sufficient means to survive and the family cannot be said to be living in penurious condition. (iv) both the sons are major and the applicant is residing in a rented accommodation near township of NTPC, Ambedkarnagar on monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- which shows that the applicant has sufficient means to survive and the family cannot be said to be living in penurious condition. (v) that the entire agricultural land which has been shown in extract Khatoni is not the same but has been shown as only 0.5 acres. (vi) that the property possessed and shown in the inspection report has not been specifically denied and rejoinder has been filed by simply denying the allegation. Due to evasive denial the facts pleaded in CA amounts to be admitted by the applicant. 16. In view of the above, the O.A. sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order to cost." 8. Assailing the orders impugned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned authorities and Tribunal, both, rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate ground after considering the terminal/pensionary benefits received, on account of death of his father, by the family of the petitioner, income from agricultural and other aspect and as such Tribunal as well as concerned authorities erred in law and fact both, as the reasons of rejection of claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground are beyond the scope of scheme of compassionate appointment dated 09.10.1998 (in short "Scheme of 1998") (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition). The reasons for rejection of claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be taken into account as per Scheme of 1998. 9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the reasons considered while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment can be taken into account, as per Scheme of 1998. Thus, there is no illegality in the order dated 12.04.2017 of the Tribunal as well as order 23.07.2015 passed by respondent no. 4. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. We find from Scheme of 1998 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition), particularly Clause 10(a),16(c), that while considering the case for providing compassionate appointment, the competent authority is under obligation to consider the financial condition of the family. 4. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. We find from Scheme of 1998 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition), particularly Clause 10(a),16(c), that while considering the case for providing compassionate appointment, the competent authority is under obligation to consider the financial condition of the family. Clause 10(a) and 16(c) are quoted herein under for ready reference:- "10(a) In deserving cases even where there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Secretary of the Department/Ministry concerned who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified having regard to number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the Government Servant, income of the earning member as also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the Government Servant and whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family. 16 (c) The Scheme of compassionate appointments was conceived as far back as 1958. Since then a number of welfare measures have been introduced by the government which have made a significant difference in the financial position of the families of the Government Servants dying in harness/retired on medical grounds. An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the Government Servant has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc. 12. In the facts of the case we would like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another Versus Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542. 12. In the facts of the case we would like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another Versus Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the policy of compassionate appointment and relevant judgments on the issue, held that benefits received by family on account of welfare measures including family pension and death gratuity as well as income from other resources are required to be considered. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that there is no right to compassionate appointment. The terms of policies framed for providing compassionate appointment must be implemented. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under:- "18. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognises that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependent member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfil the terms of the policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependent member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State. 19. But, where there is a policy, a dependent member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State. 19. The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18-1-1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance to dependants of government servants who have died while in service, "leaving their families in indigent circumstances". The policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence. The policy recognises in Para (10) that the benefits which are received by a family on account of welfare measures are required to be considered. Among them, the policy stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to be taken into account in assessing the financial circumstances of the family. The policy does not preclude the dependants of a deceased employee from being considered for compassionate appointment merely because they are in receipt of family pension. What the policy mandates is that the receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account. Para (10)(c) of the policy sets out the measures provided by the State which have a bearing on the financial need of the family. 20. In view of the clear terms of the policy, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the Government to disregard its policy. Such direction could not have been issued by the High Court. The High Court has drawn sustenance in issuing a mandamus in the above terms from a decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590. Such direction could not have been issued by the High Court. The High Court has drawn sustenance in issuing a mandamus in the above terms from a decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590. That was a case of compassionate appointment where in the course of the proceedings before the High Court, a learned Single Judge had directed Life Insurance Corporation, which was the employer of the deceased employee, to make an enquiry and submit a report on whether the members of the family engaged in gainful employment were also supporting the family of the deceased employee. This Court, in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court rejecting the petition for compassionate appointment, observed that the officer who had enquired into the matter in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge completely omitted to furnish any report on the points which were required by the High Court to be investigated. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that the family was in receipt of family pension and other amounts towards terminal benefits. Reversing the view of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus: Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590], SCC p. 291, para 6) "6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules." 21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930., SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) "2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." 22. Specifically in the context of considering the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased employee, several judgments of this Court have elaborated on the principles to be followed. 23. The decision in SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] involved an interpretation of an Office Memorandum dated 7-8-1996 circulated to all banks in the light of the decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930. The Indian Banks Association adopted the directions of this Court in the scheme which was proposed for the appointment of heirs of deceased employees. The scheme contemplated that in order to determine the financial condition of the family, the following amounts would have to be taken into account: SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943., SCC p. 273, para 7) "7. The scheme contemplated that in order to determine the financial condition of the family, the following amounts would have to be taken into account: SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943., SCC p. 273, para 7) "7. ... (a) Family pension. (b) Gratuity amount received. (c) Employee's/Employer's contribution to provident fund. (d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee. (f) Income of family from other sources. (g) Employment of other family members. (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc." Eventually, this recommendation was accepted in the scheme. In the light of these recommendations and the scheme, this Court observed that where the family of a deceased employee was not left without means of livelihood, the claim for compassionate appointment could not be sustained. It may be noted that in that case it was on a review of the overall financial position of the family, including amounts received towards terminal benefits that the decision was taken. 24. The decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 938. followed the same principle. While reiterating the view which was taken in SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943., this Court held that the scheme specified the amounts which were required to be taken into consideration. 25. The decision in SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92. has noticed the scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased employees on compassionate grounds framed by State Bank of India. The Court expressly held that the authorities were not in error in taking account of the terminal benefits, investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank. The view of this Court finds expression in the following extract: (SCC p. 784, para 12) "12. The competent authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of the employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The view of this Court finds expression in the following extract: (SCC p. 784, para 12) "12. The competent authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of the employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant Bank in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into consideration. The authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz. the agricultural land." In the view of this Court, the only issue to be considered was whether the claim for compassionate appointment had been considered in accordance with the scheme. The income of the family from all sources was required to be taken into consideration according to the scheme. This having been ignored by the High Court, the appeal filed by the Bank was allowed. 26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case. 27. In Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 51, this Court considered a circular issued by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in terms of which the total income of the family from all sources, including terminal benefits received, was required to be taken into account. 27. In Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 51, this Court considered a circular issued by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in terms of which the total income of the family from all sources, including terminal benefits received, was required to be taken into account. Income limits were specified in the circular for Group 'B', Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. Taking note of the fact that a family pension has been authorised to the widow of the deceased employee, this Court held that the case of the dependant did not fall within the income limits meant for Group 'C' posts. 28. The same principle has been reiterated in another decision of a Bench of two Judges of this Court in SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689. While adverting to a submission of the learned counsel based on the decision in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590], this Court noted thus: (SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 689., SCC p. 741, paras 8-9) "8. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] where a view has been taken that the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that another member of the family had received appropriate employment and the service benefits were adequate. We may humbly state that this view runs counter to the view which was taken earlier in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930. which was not cited before the Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590. The subsequent two judgments which were referred above also take the same view as in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930. Mr Vikas Singh has drawn our attention to the judgment in SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92. where the 1998 Scheme has been considered. 9. Mr Vikas Singh has drawn our attention to the judgment in SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92. where the 1998 Scheme has been considered. 9. In all the matters of compassionate appointment it must be noticed that it is basically a way out for the family which is financially in difficulties on account of the death of the breadearner. It is not an avenue for a regular employment as such. This is in fact an exception to the provisions under Article 16 of the Constitution. That being so, if an employer points out that the financial arrangement made for the family subsequent to the death of the employee is adequate, the members of the family cannot insist that one of them ought to be provided a comparable appointment. This being the principle which has been adopted all throughout, it is difficult for us to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent." 29. Now, it is in this background that it would be necessary to advert to the decision in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539] . A scheme for compassionate appointment of 8-5-1993 was prevalent in Canara Bank when the employee died on duty in October 1998. Faced with the rejection of an application for compassionate appointment, the High Court was moved in a writ petition in which a learned Single Judge issued. M. Mahesh Kumar v. Canara Bank, (2003) 98 FLR 1030 : 2003 SCC OnLine Ker 657] a direction for reconsideration of the claim for appointment. During the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, the scheme for compassionate appointment was replaced by a new scheme providing for ex gratia in lieu of appointment. The main issue which fell for consideration before this Court was whether the subsequent scheme which was formulated in 2005 providing for ex gratia payment would govern or whether the application would have to be disposed of on the basis of the earlier scheme of 1993. It may be noted that the application for compassionate appointment in that case had been rejected on the ground that the family of the respondent was not in indigent circumstances, as required by the scheme for compassionate appointment of 1993. 30. It may be noted that the application for compassionate appointment in that case had been rejected on the ground that the family of the respondent was not in indigent circumstances, as required by the scheme for compassionate appointment of 1993. 30. Dealing with the applicability of the subsequent scheme, a Bench of two Judges of this Court held, following the earlier decision in SBI v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578., that the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when the earlier scheme was in force. Hence, the claim could not be decided on the basis of the subsequent scheme which provided only for the payment of ex gratia. Moreover, as a matter of fact, the subsequent scheme was superseded in 2014 by reviving the scheme for the provision of compassionate appointment. 31. Hence, the issue which has been dealt with in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539. is whether the application for grant of compassionate appointment could have been rejected on the basis of a scheme which had come into force after the date of submission of the application. That, as this Court observed, was the main question which fell for consideration. The Bench of two Judges, however, also noted that it was urged on behalf of the appellant Bank that the family of the respondent was in receipt of family pension. This, the Court held, was of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. 32. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has sought to distinguish the above observations, in the judgment in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 539, by submitting that it is not the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh that mere receipt of family pension would disable an applicant from submitting an application for compassionate appointment or preclude consideration of the claim. On the contrary, the submission which is urged is that the scheme requires consideration of all relevant sources of income and hence, receipt of family pension would be one of the criteria which would be taken into consideration in determining as to whether the family of the deceased employee is in indigent circumstances. On the contrary, the submission which is urged is that the scheme requires consideration of all relevant sources of income and hence, receipt of family pension would be one of the criteria which would be taken into consideration in determining as to whether the family of the deceased employee is in indigent circumstances. We find merit in this submission for the simple reason that it is in accord with the express terms of the scheme of 18-1-1990 as modified by the State. The scheme contemplates that payments which have been received on account of welfare measures provided by the State including family pension are to be taken into account. Plainly, the terms of the scheme must be implemented. 33. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified, based on the decision in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] in issuing a direction to the State to act in a manner contrary to the express terms of the scheme which require that the family pension received by the dependents of the deceased employee be taken into account." 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any other good reason or ground to establish that the reasoning given by the Tribunal and respondent no. 4, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is unjustified and illegal. 14. Keeping in view the provision of the scheme of 1998 and the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh(Supra), we hold that there is no illegality in the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal and order dated 23.07.2015 passed by respondent no. 4. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find a fit case for interference. 15. The petition is misconceived and hence dismissed accordingly.