JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Sharan Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri B.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Rajesh Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Himanshu Tewari, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is challenging order dated 21.04.2004, Annexure 15 to the writ petition, whereby claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by Chief Manager (Personnel Administration) Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as "Bank") on the ground that as per scheme of compassionate appointment, petitioner has not been found eligible for compassionate appointment. Petitioner's father was working as Clerk cum Accountant and met an accident on 03.6.1995 which ultimately resulted in his death on 13.05.1996. He left behind his widow Smt. Parvati Devi and six sons namely, Anand Prakash, chandra Prakash, Hari Prakash, Satya Prakash, Ajay Prakash, Kripa Prakash and two daughters. Petitioner is the third son of the deceased. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment vide application dated 02.7.1996. 3. Petitioner's elder brother has obtained certain loan for business purpose and committed default and in recovery thereof, some amount were adjusted by the Bank from the amount payable to deceased's wife. However, it is on record that family pension was Rs.4457.94. Besides, deceased has 12 bighas agricultural land and own residential house. Considering facts and circumstances Bank vide letter dated 08.01.2002 rejected application for compassionate appointment on the ground that his financial condition is not without any means of livelihood and his family cannot be said to be in penury. Again petitioner applied for compassionate appointment but this time also the same has been rejected. 4. Factual contention with record to petitioner's financial condition, as discussed above, is not disputed. Whether aforesaid amount payable to petitioner and land can be said to be sufficient to take out petitioner from the condition of penury, I find has been considered in similar matters time and again. 5. General Manager (D & PB) and others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and another (2004) 7 SCC 271 was a case arising in the matter of State Bank of India. The employee Kunti Tiwary died in-harness on 16.01.1998. Application for compassionate appointment was made when deceased's son was minor. He attained majority on 25.02.2000. Thereafter he applied for compassionate appointment. 5. General Manager (D & PB) and others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and another (2004) 7 SCC 271 was a case arising in the matter of State Bank of India. The employee Kunti Tiwary died in-harness on 16.01.1998. Application for compassionate appointment was made when deceased's son was minor. He attained majority on 25.02.2000. Thereafter he applied for compassionate appointment. Financial condition of family was examined by Bank and it was found that deceased employee's family was paid Provident Fund of Rs.3,33,410/-, Gratuity of Rs.1,73,987/- and Leave Encashment of Rs. 1,01,344/-. The deceased employee had an investment of Rs. 66,000/-in share of State Bank of India, etc. Family was paid a pension of Rs.5,583/-per month. The application, therefore, was rejected on the ground that possessed assets and monthly income was such as not to hold family in penury condition. The family also consisted of a widow, two sons and a daughter. Rejection of application was challenged in Writ Court and a learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition. In intra Court appeal judgment of learned Single Judge was set aside and direction was issued to Bank to give compassionate appointment. This order came to be challenged in Supreme Court, who allowed appeal and restored judgment of learned Single Judge. 6. In Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja 2004 (7) SCC 265 , father of Ashwani Kumar Taneja, a Class IV employee, died in harness on 03.12.1999 leaving behind his mother, widow, two sons and one daughter. Request for compassionate appointment was declined by Bank, where against writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court and Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by Division Bench. The High Court held that for considering application for compassionate appointment, amount paid towards gratuity, provident fund etc. cannot be looked into. The matter went in appeal to Supreme Court and it held that the said amount can be taken into consideration and judgment of High Court was reversed holding that benefit paid after death can be considered for judging financial hardship. 7. In State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571 , again a matter relating to State Bank of India, one Sukhbir Inder Singh, husband of Jaspal Kaur died in harness on 01.08.1999 while working as Record Assistant. An application for compassionate appointment of widow was rejected by Bank. 7. In State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571 , again a matter relating to State Bank of India, one Sukhbir Inder Singh, husband of Jaspal Kaur died in harness on 01.08.1999 while working as Record Assistant. An application for compassionate appointment of widow was rejected by Bank. In writ petition filed by Jaspal Kaur, High Court directed Bank to reconsider the application, which was again declined. The matter again came to High Court, which took a view that retiral benefits of Rs.4,57,607/-paid to the family as terminal benefits cannot be said to be a sufficient amount to bring away family from financial hardship. Supreme Court found that family of deceased consisted of a widow, two daughters and a son. Terminal benefits were paid as Rs.4,57,607/-and monthly pension was Rs.2,055/-and held that in the above facts and circumstances denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that family was not in penurious condition was justified. 8. In State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar (Special Appeal No.14 of 2007), decided on 21.11.2017 a Division Bench of this Court found that terminal benefits of Rs.3.79 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh from LIC policy and gross monthly income of Rs.4,000/-justify denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that family is not in penurious condition. 9. Similarly, in Punjab National Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Special Appal No.867 of 2006), decided on 21.11.2013, this Court found that family pension of Rs.4,807/-per month after death of deceased employee justify denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that family is not in penurious condition. 10. Besides, I also find that deceased employee died in 1996 and more than 24 years have now passed and hence after such a long time direction to make compassionate appointment would defeat the objective which is foundation of compassionate appointment. At this stage, it will not be appropriate on the part of this Court to exercise jurisdiction with respect to relief of compassionate appointment to petitioner, inasmuch as, if family has already lived for 24 years, any direction for compassionate appointment will defeat the very objective of scheme of compassionate appointment, which is meant for providing minimum succor to deceased family for its survival and not providing employment by way of reservation on account of succession. 11. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated by Court in Union of India Vs. 11. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated by Court in Union of India Vs. Bhagwan 1995 (6) SCC 436, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23 . In the later case, Court said: “compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. ….. the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years.” 12. In Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak 1997 (11) SCC 390 , Court said: “As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tied over the sudden financial crises and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment.” 13. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2230 , Court said: “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.” 14. In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 , Court said: “The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.” 15. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.” 15. In S. Mohan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. 1999 (I) LLJ 539, Court said: “The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 16. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2782 it was held: “compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood” 17. In Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi JT 2002 (3) SC 485 : 2002 (10) SCC 246, Court said: “As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family ....” 18. In Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja AIR 2004 SC 4155 , court said : “It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.” 19. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 106 , Court said: “It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises.” 20. In State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Sajad Ahmed AIR 2006 SC 2743 , Court said: “Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” (emphasis added) 21. In I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 (6) SCC 162 , Court said: “Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.” 22. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2008 (11) SCC 384 , Court held that now a well settled principle of law is that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or public sector undertakings is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over sudden financial crises. 23. Following several earlier authorities, in M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or public sector undertakings is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over sudden financial crises. 23. Following several earlier authorities, in M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar and others, (2009) 13 SCC 122 = JT 2009 (6) SC 624, Court said: “The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 24. In Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 481 , Court said: “The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that is faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.” 25. The Court considered that father of appellant Santosh Kumar Dubey (supra) became untraceable in 1981 and for about 18 years the family could survive and successfully faced and over came the financial difficulties. In these circumstances it further held: “That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions.” 26. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions.” 26. The importance of penury and indigence of family of deceased employee and need to provide immediate assistance for compassionate appointment has been considered in Union of India (UOI) & Anr. Vs. B. Kishore 2011(4) SCALE 308. This is relevant to make the provisions for compassionate appointment valid and constitutional else the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Court said: “If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” 27. It is thus clear that rule of compassionate appointment has an object to give relief against destitution. It is not a provision to provide alternate employment or an appointment commensurate with the post held by the deceased employee. It is not by way of giving similarly placed life to the dependents of the deceased. While considering the provision pertaining to relaxation under Rules, 1974 the very object of compassionate appointment cannot be ignored. This is what has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Madhulika Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & ors. 2011 (3) ADJ 91 . 28. In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others (2011) 4 SCC 209 , Court said that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 29. In MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583 , Court has said that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and application for compassionate appointment need be decided as expeditiously as possible. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. Courts should not stretch the scheme for compassionate appointment by liberal interpretation on humanitarian grounds beyond permissible limits so as to allow compassionate appointment after a long time from the date of death. Either such appointments are made immediately or within a reasonable time of death and if appointment is not claimed for long time or made, it would be travesty of justice to compassionate appointment after a long time. … 31. This has been followed in Canara Bank and others Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar and others (2015) 7 SCC 412 . Court stressed upon aforesaid recent authorities that every appointment to public office must strictly adhere to the mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Compassionate appointment is an exception so as to provide employment to remove financial constraints suffered by bereft family of a government servant who die in harness and family has lost its bread earner. However, it was held that mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate appointment. ….. 38. In view of above exposition of law, I do not find any manifest error in the decision taken by Bank denying compassionate appointment to petitioner. 39. Dismissed. 40. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.