JUDGMENT : 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner no.2 on a suitable post in Class-III or Class-IV. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case, as noticed by this Court, are that the husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, late Chandra Bhushan Singh was a permanent employee of State Bank of India, who was posted as Messenger in Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad. On 06.12.2007, Chandra Bhushan died during his service and left behind him two sons, namely, Abhishek Singh-petitioner no.2 and Avinash Singh, his widow wife-petitioner no.1Smt. Neelam Singh and his old ailing parents. After the death of Chandra Bhushan Singh, the petitioners have made an application for appointment on compassionate ground before the respondent no.2Chief Manager Human Resources (Network-III) Local Head Office Moti Mahal Marg, Lucknow in favour of petitioner no. 2, namely, Abhishek Singh, son of late Chandra Bhushan Singh. Vide letter dated 06.02.2008, the petitioners were informed by the respondent no.2 that presently there is no provision for appointment under the Dying-inHarness Scheme, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner can not be made, hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that large number of dependents of Class- III & IV, who died during service period, were given appointments by the respondents in various branches of the State Bank of India, but in the case of the petitioners, he has not been given appointment on compassionate ground, which is illegal. He has further submitted that only Rs.1,60,000/has been paid as fund, which is too meager. He has further submitted that petitioners have no other source of livelihood and if the appointment of the petitioner no.2 is denied, the petitioners and their family member will suffer. The petitioner no.2 fulfills all minimum qualifications for being appointed on any Class-III/Class-IV posts, therefore, the petitioner no. 2 is entitled to be appointed as his younger brother and mother have no objection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Ministry of Finance has floated a Scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks vide letter dated 07.08.2014. 2 is entitled to be appointed as his younger brother and mother have no objection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Ministry of Finance has floated a Scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks vide letter dated 07.08.2014. Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued a letter dated 05.12.2014 in response to the request made by the State Bank of India, whereby it was decided that all public sector banks can have both options i.e. compassionate appointment or payment of lumpsum exgratia amount. He has further submitted that on the date of death of father of petitioner no.2 and on the date of making the application, the compassionate appointment scheme was in force and, therefore, the petitioner no.2 is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the said scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, lastly, submitted that after the aforesaid policy decision taken by the Government of India, there does not exist any impediment in the compassionate appointment, hence, the case of the petitioner is fully covered under the Scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Bank (PSB). In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, arising out of Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008 and other connected matters. 5. On the other hand, countering the above said submissions Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that a new Scheme i.e. SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex-gratia Lumpsum Amount was inducted on 04.08.2005 and under the aforesaid Scheme, the provisions giving compassionate appointment was abolished and its place, provisions of making payment of exgratia lumpsum amount was inducted. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and another vs. Raj Kumar passed in Civil Appeal No.1641 of 2010 decided on 08.02.2010, wherein the Apex Court directed the appellant-Bank to process such application under the new Scheme. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and another vs. Raj Kumar passed in Civil Appeal No.1641 of 2010 decided on 08.02.2010, wherein the Apex Court directed the appellant-Bank to process such application under the new Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has further submitted that the deceased employee died much after enforcement of new scheme inducted on 04.08.2005 in which the provisions of giving compassionate appointment was abolished and in its place provisions of making payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount was inducted, hence, the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment may be dismissed. 7. I have heard Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondentBank and perused the material available on record. 8. Undisputedly, the father of petitioner no.2 died on 6.12.2007 while he was serving on the post of Messenger in Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad and the petitioners have applied for compassionate appointment as per “Dying in Harness Scheme”, but the respondent-Bank informed vide its letter dated 06.02.2008 that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be provided in the light of aforesaid Scheme i.e. SBI Scheme for Payment of ExGratia Lumpsum Amount and, thus, the petitioners were only entitled for payment of exgratia lumpsum amount as per new Scheme. 9. Normally, three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are: (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfillment of the illegibility criteria prescribed under the scheme; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. On the other hand, if a scheme provides that on the death of an employee, if a dependent family member is entitled to appointment merely on making of an application, whether any vacancy exists or not, and without the need to fulfill any eligibility criteria, then the scheme creates a right in favour of the applicant on making the application. On the other hand, if a scheme provides that on the death of an employee, if a dependent family member is entitled to appointment merely on making of an application, whether any vacancy exists or not, and without the need to fulfill any eligibility criteria, then the scheme creates a right in favour of the applicant on making the application. Normal scheme contemplates compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility requirements. 10. In Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 468 , the law with regard to employment on compassionate ground for dependent of a deceased employee is well settled. “9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 11. In the case of Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, arising out of Civil Appeal No.260 of 2008 and other connected matters decided on 15.05.2015, the Court held as under: “14. It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme providing only for exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment stands superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which has revived the scheme providing for compassionate appointment. As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide compassionate appointment. Under these circumstances, the appellant-bank is not justified in contending that the application for compassionate appointment of the respondent cannot be considered in view of passage of time.” 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, has also observed that the monetary benefit would not be replacement of the bread-earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace in the given situation. 13. It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme provides only for exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, which stands superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which has revived the scheme providing for compassionate appointment. 13. It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme provides only for exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, which stands superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which has revived the scheme providing for compassionate appointment. Thus, I find that after policy decision dated 05.04.2014 taken by Bank of India in respect of compassionate appointment, the case of the petitioners can be considered in light of the letter dated 05.04.2014 issued by Government of India. 14. In view of the aforesaid observations, mandamus is issued to the respondent-Bank to consider the claim of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of presentation of copy of this order in light of the Scheme of compassionate appointment in Public Sector Bank w.e.f. 05.08.2014 issued vide its Letter No.F.No.18/2/2013IR and letter dated 05.12.2014 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services as well as judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra). 15. The writ petition stands disposed off. 16. There will be no order as to costs.