JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant-State of Jharkhand is aggrieved of the order dated 03.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.2554 of 2012, by which a direction has been issued to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). By the order dated 07.05.2010 claim for compassionate appointment of the wife of the Home-Guard namely, Mahendra Prasad Mehta was rejected. This was the order challenged before the writ Court. 2. The employee namely, late Mahendra Prasad Mehta had two wives; his second wife-Chinta Devi came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4591 of 2006 seeking compassionate appointment on death of late Mahendra Prasad Mehta, who died in a road accident on 28.01.2006 while on duty. This writ petition was dismissed in default and never restored. His first wife-Sumitra Devi thereafter filed W.P.(S) No. 5187 of 2007 in which she has impleaded Chinta Devi as respondent, however, she did not appear in the proceeding of W.P.(S) No. 5187 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms : “Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to assess the amount of compensation payable on account of the death of the deceased Home Guard Volunteer while discharging the duty, in accordance with the scheme floated by the Government in such eventuality, within a period of one months from the date of this order and on being satisfied about the genuineness of the petitioner's claim the entitlement of the benefits of the scheme as the surviving legal heir and representative of deceased employee, shall pay the same to her. The respondents shall also consider and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the benefits reserved under the Government policy/Scheme in such cases.” 3. In purported compliance of the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5187 of 2007, the respondent-authority has passed an order dated 07.05.2010 by which claim for compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner namely, Sumitra Devi has been declined. The reason for which her claim has been rejected is that death of her husband was not in a naxal violence. 4. The learned writ Court taking note of the several orders passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court including the one passed in W.P.(S) No. 4589 of 2006 which was preferred by Most. The reason for which her claim has been rejected is that death of her husband was not in a naxal violence. 4. The learned writ Court taking note of the several orders passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court including the one passed in W.P.(S) No. 4589 of 2006 which was preferred by Most. Taruna Devi, widow of the Home-Guard namely, late Sahdev Prasad Mehta who also died in the same road accident in which husband of the present writ petitioner has died, has observed as under : “Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and the impugned order dated 07.05.2010 contained in Memo No.706 (Annex.-5) is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, is fit to be quashed and set aside on the following ground:- (I) Issue regarding the consideration of Home Guard for compassionate appointment is no more res integra as the same has been decided in catena of decisions, in the cases of Gayatri Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 132 , Chanda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 25 and in WPS No. 4589 of 2006 Most. Taruna Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand decided on 30.11.2006. (II) Moreover, when the petitioner has approached this Court earlier in W.P.S. No. 5187 of 2007 decided on 08.04.2010, this Court observed that:- Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to assess the amount of compensation payable on account of the death of the deceased Home Guard Volunteer while discharging the duty, in accordance with the scheme floated by the Government in such eventuality, within a period of one months from the date of this order and on being satisfied about the genuineness of the petitioner's claim the entitlement of the benefits of the scheme as the surviving legal heir and representative of deceased employee, shall pay the same to her. The respondents shall also consider and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the benefits reserved under the Government policy/Scheme in such cases. The respondents shall also consider and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the benefits reserved under the Government policy/Scheme in such cases. This Court in WPS No. 4589 of 2006 disposed on 30.11.2006 held that “in any case, this Court has already interpreted the nature of the appointment of Home Guard Volunteers and held that they are public servants while performing the duties and, thus, in the event of death of a Home Guard Volunteers, his dependent will be entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment.” One Daji Mishra, dependants of deceased Home Guard also moved this Court for payment of ex gratia compensation to the widow an also for appointment on compassionate ground, which was allowed vide order dated 13.05.2010, relying on the earlier orders passed in WPS No. 6335 of 2007 (Salwa Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., WPS No. 1390 of 2006 (Chanda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors) and also in case of Gaytri Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 132 , the said order was challenged by the State of Jharkhand & Ors., in L.P.A No. 519 of 2010, which was dismissed and the same was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.07.2012.” 5. Two fold submissions have been made on behalf of the appellant-State of Jharkhand namely; (i) compassionate appointment being an exception to the constitutional mandate under Article 14 and 16 cannot be granted contrary to the scheme formulated for compassionate appointment, and (ii) order dated 07.05.2010 which was impugned before the writ Court was passed strictly in consonance with the direction issued by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 5187 of 2007. 6. As against the above, Mr. R.A. Choubey, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the previous orders passed by this Court for compassionate appointment to the dependant of a Home-Guard while on duty have attained finality and while so, binding on the appellant-State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the respondent has been rightly held entitled for the compassionate appointment. 7. Compassionate appointment to a dependant of the deceased employee is not a vested right in him. 7. Compassionate appointment to a dependant of the deceased employee is not a vested right in him. It is also not a mode of appointment rather it is an exception carved out to the mandate under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India under which immediate help is provided to a family in distress to tide over the crisis in the family of the deceased employee. By now it is well-settled that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course and the claim for compassionate appointment must be implemented strictly within four corners of the scheme [refer, “Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India” reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 ]. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; 2. “....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 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 land 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. 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 6 the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 8. There is no dispute that at least one dependant namely, Most. Taruna Devi is similarly situated on facts to the respondent, but then, what distinguishes the case of the respondent is the direction issued by the learned writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 5187 of 2007. The learned writ Court has specifically directed the respondents to “take a decision in accordance with the scheme floated by the Government”. The operative portion of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5187 of 2007 further reiterates that, “the respondent shall also consider and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the benefits reserved under the Government policy/scheme in such cases”. 9. The scheme under which the respondent has claimed compassionate appointment is applicable only in such cases in which a Home-Guard volunteer has died in naxal violence, while on duty. The husband of the respondent has died in a road accident, may be while on duty, but the unfortunate incident is not covered under the scheme floated by the Government and while so, the direction issued under the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge has become unsustainable. 10. There is another aspect of the matter which needs to be indicated here. It is about 13 years after the employee-Mahendra Prasad Mehta died in a road accident and the respondent has crossed the age of 45 years; the learned counsel for the respondent admits that the respondent was born in the year 1969. 11. In the result, the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.2554 of 2012 is set-aside. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed.