JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, Advocate, for petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of respondent-Bank despite the case having been called in revise. Hence I proceed to hear and decide this case ex parte, after hearing learned counsel for petitioner. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-1, Zonal Office, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'AGM, SBI') rejecting application of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that family of deceased employee is not in penurious condition as per the tests laid down in the “Scheme of Compassionate Appointment applicable to Bank” and, therefore, compassionate appointment of petitioner would not be justified. 3. Facts in brief, giving rise to present writ petition, are that petitioner’s father Tasveer Iqbal was working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'S.B.I.') and posted at State Bank of India, Mundia Dhureki Branch, Bisauli, District Budaun. He died in harness on 23.06.2000 leaving following heirs: (i) Jameel Ahmad, aged about 80 years (father) (ii) Smt. Bilkuis Fatima, aged about 75 years (mother) (iii) Smt. Kaneez Fatima, aged about 41 years (widow) (iv) Hasan Tanveer Iqbal, aged about 28 years (son-petitioner) (v) Hasan Jamal Iqbal, aged about 26 years (son) 4. At the time of death of petitioner’s father, petitioner and his brother, both were married. Petitioner’s mother Kaneez Fatima was working as Teacher and receiving salary of Rs. 5,199/-per month. Smt. Kaneez Fatima was step mother of petitioner. She received amount of provident fund, leave encashment, gratuity, etc. It is alleged that she did not provide any financial assistance to petitioner or grandparents. Petitioner’s uncle Saghir Iqbal was also bed ridden and his son was paralytic and both were being looked after by petitioner. Saghir Iqbal also died on 31.12.2004 and now his family is being looked after by petitioner. Petitioner’s real mother Smt. Shama Tasveer Iqbal also died during life time of petitioner’s father, on 21.11.1996. Petitioner’s brother had taken loan under Self Employment Scheme but incurred huge losses, closed down the shop and amount of loan and interest due thereon are deducted from the amount of gratuity paid after death of petitioner’s father. Family pension is being paid but received by Smt. Kaneez Fatima, step mother and petitioner is not getting any financial assistance from her. Petitioner’s father has taken loan of Rs. Family pension is being paid but received by Smt. Kaneez Fatima, step mother and petitioner is not getting any financial assistance from her. Petitioner’s father has taken loan of Rs. 2,20,000/-from one Qumar Abbas and mortgaged his house. This amount was repaid by petitioner so as to redeem the house. 5. In these circumstances, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 14.07.2000 under the “Scheme For Appointment On Compassionate Ground For Dependent of Deceased Employee/ Employees Retrenched on Medical Grounds” applicable to S.B.I. The said application was rejected by order dated 10.10.2000 passed by Branch Manager of Bank. 6. This order was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 48935 of 2000 which was allowed vide judgment dated 01.02.2005 and Court found that Branch Manager was not competent to make appointment on Class-III post, therefore, compassionate appointment application could not have been considered by Branch Manager and hence order of rejection was passed by him without any authority. This Court, therefore, directed S.B.I.’s competent authority to consider petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment and pass a fresh order. 7. Pursuant to judgment dated 01.02.2005, petitioner submitted a fresh application on 22.02.2005. It has been rejected by order dated 04.05.2005. The competent authority has rejected application by considering the number of dependents and financial condition of family which has been stated in the impugned order, as under: A. Dependents of the deceased officer Name Age As on date of death Relationship Marital Status Education Qualificatio n Vocation YY MM DD - 1. Jamil Ahmad 80 Father Married - - 2.Smt. Bilkis Fatima 70 Mother Married - - 3.Smt. Kaneez Fatima 41 Wife Widow Intermediate Teacher 4.Hasan Tanveer Iqbal (petitioner) 28 Son Married Intermediate Unemployed 5.Hasan Jamal 26 Son Married Intermediate Self Iqbal - employed All the three daughters of Late Sri Iqbal are married and living separately. B. Financial condition of the family ASSETS (Rs. in Lacs) LIABILITIES (Rs. in lacs) Terminal benefits paid by the Bank To Bank Nil Provident fund 6.26 Gratuity 2.64 Leave Encashment 1.32 Total 10.22 Total Investments To outsiders NSCs 1.45 Overdraft account LIC Policies 0.50 Total 1.95 Total C. Immovable Property Rs. in lacs 1. House 1.50 2. Plot of land value as per asset and 0.90 Liability statement dated 31.03.2000 of The deceased officer D. Monthly income of the family from all sources after the death of employee i. Family Pension (Basic Rs. 3585+D.A. Rs. in lacs 1. House 1.50 2. Plot of land value as per asset and 0.90 Liability statement dated 31.03.2000 of The deceased officer D. Monthly income of the family from all sources after the death of employee i. Family Pension (Basic Rs. 3585+D.A. Rs. 2948) : Rs. 6533.00 ii. Assumed interest on 80% of net corpus of terminal : Rs. 5323.00 benefits (Rs. 1.22 lacsX6.25%) (20% of net corpus ignored for incidental expenses) iii. Income from investments : Rs. 656.00 (Rs. 1.95 lac-0.69 lac=1.26 lacX6.25%) iv Income of employed family members (wife) : Rs. 5199.00 Total Monthly income of the family : Rs.17711.00 E. Income of the family immediately prior to death of the employee: i. Last take home salary of Shri Tasveer Iqbal : Rs. 17108.00 ii. Salary of wife of Shri Tasveer Iqbal : Rs. 5199.00 Total Monthly Income of the family : Rs. 22307.00 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that entire income is being received by petitioner’s step mother and, therefore, denial of compassionate appointment to petitioner is wholly arbitrary. He also contended that terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute of providing compassionate employment and for this purpose reliance is placed on Supreme Court’s judgment in Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar and others (2015) 7 SCC 412 and Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale) vs. State of Maharashtra (2015) 3 SCC 399 . 9. Bank has contested the matter by filing Counter Affidavit, and placing on record, “Scheme of Compassionate Appointment applicable to S.B.I.” It is pleaded that as per para-10 thereof, relevant factors for determining financial condition of family necessary to be taken into consideration include the number of dependents, family pension, other terminal benefits and income of family from other sources etc. and pursuant to the aforesaid scheme, matter has been examined whereafter petitioner has not been found entitled for compassionate appointment. It is urged that petitioner’s mother (step mother) was admittedly employed as Teacher and that being so, it cannot be said that family was in penury having no source of earning so as to justify compassionate appointment. 10. This Court now has to examine “whether denial of compassionate appointment of petitioner in the above facts and circumstances, is justified or not”. 11. It is now well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. 10. This Court now has to examine “whether denial of compassionate appointment of petitioner in the above facts and circumstances, is justified or not”. 11. It is now well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. It is not an appointment by succession. The objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of deceased employee who was sole bread-earner and his sudden death in harness has caused serious financial scarcity and penury to the family. To mitigate such sufferance, compassionate appointment is provided. 12. In Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 481 , Court had the occasion to consider Rule 5 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974) and 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." (emphasis added) 13. In I.G. (Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2008(1) ESC 107 (SC), 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. 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." 14. The importance of penury and indigence of the 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. The 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." 15. It is thus clear that rule of compassionate appointment has an object to give immediate 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 dependants of the deceased. It is not a right reserved to an heir of a deceased employee founded on succession. It is not a vested right but a concession. 16. In State of U. P. and others Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, (2013) 11 SCC 178 , Court observed that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. It is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. 17. In Canara Bank and others Vs. 16. In State of U. P. and others Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, (2013) 11 SCC 178 , Court observed that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. It is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. 17. 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. 18. What should be the reckoning point for considering eligibility etc. for compassionate appointment, is an issue squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Rajkumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 . Court observed that claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by employer for such employment. There is no right, whatsoever, outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished or withdrawn. When a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not, by itself, create a right in favour of the applicant. Court also said that, normally, three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are: (i) an application by a dependent family member of deceased employee; (ii) fulfilment of eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. 19. Court also considered, whether death of deceased employee, by itself, results in creating a right, i.e., a vested right in the dependants to claim compassionate appointment or not, and said, that it would depend on the terms of scheme. 19. Court also considered, whether death of deceased employee, by itself, results in creating a right, i.e., a vested right in the dependants to claim compassionate appointment or not, and said, that it would depend on the terms of scheme. One of such case is where scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member on the death of any employee without any of the aforesaid three requirements, and, in such a case, it can be said that scheme creates a right in favour of family member for appointment on the date of death of employee. In such a case scheme in force at the time of death would apply. 20. The second category is where 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 fulfil any eligibility criteria, then the scheme creates a right in favour of the applicant, on making application and the scheme, that was in force at the time when application for compassionate appointment was filed, will apply. 21. The third category, where scheme contemplates compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling prescribed eligibility requirements, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. 22. The fourth category covers a scheme where the dependant of the deceased employee has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving amongst the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. 23. In the cases of schemes like that of third and fourth categories, there is a need to verify eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a selection committee to assess the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limited number of earmarked vacancies. In such cases, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. In such cases, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. In all these cases, it cannot be said that applicant has a vested right. Here such scheme would be applicable which was available and operating when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made. Similarly, if the earlier scheme is abolished and new scheme, which replaces it, if specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. 24. Court in State Bank of India Vs. Rajkumar (supra) also observed that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The employer may wind up the scheme or modify it at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts. 25. In taking the above view, Court also relied on its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R. Padmanabhan 2003 (7) SCC 270 . 26. When a family of employee can be treated to be in penurious condition or not, and what are the factors which are to be examined and looked into has also been considered in different facts and circumstances in various cases and one such case is Union of India and others Vs. B.Kishore 2011 (13) SCC 131 . Therein, one K. Janaki, working as Senior Accountant in Office of the Directorate of Postal Accounts, Madras died on 01.09.1993. Post death dues paid to her family comprised of Rs.71,000/-towards death-cum-retirement gratuity and Rs.2,998/-per month as family pension. Sri B. Kishore, husband of deceased, submitted an application on 11.01.1994 claiming compassionate appointment. It was rejected by Circle Selection Committee by letter dated 26.02.1998, on the ground that he was not found in indigent circumstances. This letter dated 26.02.1998 was challenged before Tribunal at Madras Bench in O. A. No.610 of 1998, which was dismissed by Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 16.07.1998. However, Madras High Court allowed writ petition filed by Sri B. Kishore holding that scheme of compassionate appointment as applicable when B. Kishore applied for compassionate appointment did not lay emphasis on indigence as criteria for withholding or offering compassionate appointment. However, Madras High Court allowed writ petition filed by Sri B. Kishore holding that scheme of compassionate appointment as applicable when B. Kishore applied for compassionate appointment did not lay emphasis on indigence as criteria for withholding or offering compassionate appointment. This judgment of Madras High Court came up for consideration before Supreme Court. Court firstly held that observation of High Court that indigence was not criteria for withholding or offering compassionate appointment, is misconceived, since, it loses to visualize the very concept of compassionate appointment. Court held that indigence of dependents of deceased employee is first precondition to bring a case under scheme of compassionate appointment. The very purpose and object of scheme is to provide immediate succour to family of deceased employee on his death, which may suddenly find itself in state of destitution. If element of indigence and need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation, is taken out from scheme of compassionate appointment, it would be taken out to be a result in favour of dependents of an employee who died while in service, which would be directly in conflict with the idea of equality guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court also took notice of Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 issued by Central Government, revising and consolidating instructions in connection with the scheme of compassionate appointment, and after referring to its various clauses, said : "The case of the Respondent clearly did not come under the revised and consolidated scheme formulated by Office Memorandum dated October 9, 1998, that had come into force when his case came up for consideration before the High Court. Even otherwise and without any reference to the Office Memorandum dated October 9, 1998, the case of the Respondent does not meet or satisfy the basic object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds." (emphasis added) 27. In MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, 2014 (13) SCC 583 , father of Chakrawarti Singh who was working as a Class III employee in MGB Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') died in harness on 19.04.2006. Chakrawarti Singh applied for compassionate appointment on 12.05.2006. When application was pending, a new scheme for compassionate appointment came into force by Circular dated 12.06.2006 with effect from 06.10.2006. Chakrawarti Singh applied for compassionate appointment on 12.05.2006. When application was pending, a new scheme for compassionate appointment came into force by Circular dated 12.06.2006 with effect from 06.10.2006. Clause 14 of said scheme provided that all applications pending on the date of commencement of the scheme shall be considered for ex-gratia payment to the family instead of compassionate appointment. Consequently, Chakrawarti Singh was denied compassionate appointment. He preferred a writ petition and learned Single Judge took a view that cause of action for compassionate appointment arose to Chakrawarti Singh before the new scheme came into force and, therefore, it should be considered in the light of earlier scheme i.e. 1983 Scheme. Division Bench dismissed Intra Court Appeal preferred by petitioner and that is how the matter reached Supreme Court. Court held that every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Compassionate appointment is an exception carved out in order to remove financial constraints on bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. Competent Authority has to examine financial condition of the family of deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family and not otherwise. It is also one of the condition that person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. Court clearly held as under : "Consistent view that has been taken by Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is not a vested right. Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds." 28. Court also observed that there should be no leniency in the matter of providing compassionate appointment beyond the scheme. An 'ameliorating relief' should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. An application made at belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. Court also observed that there should be no leniency in the matter of providing compassionate appointment beyond the scheme. An 'ameliorating relief' should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. An application made at belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. It also held that Courts and Tribunals cannot refer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the Regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments. Then referring to judgment of S.B.I. and another Vs. Raj Kumar (supra) in para 13, Court said as under : "13. The Court considered various aspects of service jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the Scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the Scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In State Bank of India and Anr. (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the case under the new Scheme has to be considered." (emphasis added) 29. Consequently Supreme Court set aside judgment of High Court and directed the matter to be dealt up by the new scheme. 30. Now looking to the matter in question in the light of above exposition of law, I find that there is no scheme providing automatic employment on compassionate basis. Competent Authority has to examine financial condition of the family, availability of vacancy etc. to determine whether applicant i.e. petitioner in this case is entitled for compassionate appointment or not. 31. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that petitioner's family i.e. family of deceased employee is getting monthly pension of Rs. 6533/-. One of the parent i.e. widow of deceased employee is in service getting salary of Rs. 5199/-per month. Besides, family received total amount of Rs. 10.22 lacs as terminal benefits. These facts stated in impugned order are not shown incorrect. 6533/-. One of the parent i.e. widow of deceased employee is in service getting salary of Rs. 5199/-per month. Besides, family received total amount of Rs. 10.22 lacs as terminal benefits. These facts stated in impugned order are not shown incorrect. Collectively, thus it cannot be said that family is in penurious condition and cannot survive if compassionate appointment is not provided. I find that in similar circumstances denial of compassionate appointment has been resulted on the ground that condition of family cannot be said to be penurious. 32. 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. 33. 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, whereagainst 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. Request for compassionate appointment was declined by Bank, whereagainst 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. In view of above exposition of law, I do not find any manifest error in the decision taken by respondent-Bank denying compassionate appointment to petitioner. 38. Now there is another fatal aspect in this case. Petitioner’s father admittedly died on On 23.06.2000. Now we are in 2020. 37. In view of above exposition of law, I do not find any manifest error in the decision taken by respondent-Bank denying compassionate appointment to petitioner. 38. Now there is another fatal aspect in this case. Petitioner’s father admittedly died on On 23.06.2000. Now we are in 2020. After almost 20 years, it will not be in the interest of justice to pass any order for compassionate appointment to petitioner particularly considering the fact that in 2000 petitioner was 28 years of age, and now would be 48 years of age. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to family to save it from starvation but after 20 years when family has already lived and met its expenses, there is no justification to provide compassionate appointment after such a long time. 39. Moreover, petitioner himself was a married son in 2000. He was maintaining not only himself or his grandparents or others but also his own family. It is well settled that if the family had sufficient means to carry on its affairs for long time, in such a case compassionate appointment cannot be directed. The purpose of compassionate appointment is not to provide employment by succession but it is to meet immediate necessity arrived at due to sudden demise of sole bread earner of the family leaving the legal heirs in penury. 40. The purpose of compassionate appointment is not for providing a post against post. It is not reservation in service by virtue of succession. If the family is not in penury and capable to maintain itself for a long time, no mandamus would be issued after a long time for providing compassionate appointment to a legal heir of the deceased employee. 41. Repeatedly, it has been held that the purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to enable the members of family of the deceased employee in penury, due to sudden demise of the sole breadwinner, get support and succour to sustain themselves and not to face hardship for their bore sustenance. 42. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated in Union of India Vs. Bhagwan 1995 (6) SCC 436 and Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23 . 42. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated in Union of India Vs. Bhagwan 1995 (6) SCC 436 and 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.” (emphasis added) 43. 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.” 44. 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.” (emphasis added) 45. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. 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.” (emphasis added) 45. 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.” (emphasis added) 46. In S. Mohan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. 1999 (I) LLJ 539, Supreme 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.” (emphasis added) 47. 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” 48. 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 ....” 49. 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.” (emphasis added) 50. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Anr. 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.” (emphasis added) 50. 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. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises.” 51. 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) 52. 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.” 53. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. 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.” 53. 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. 54. Following several earlier authorities, in M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar and others, (2009) 13 SCC 122, 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.” (emphasis added) 55. In Santosh Kumar Dubey (supra), Court considered that father of appellant Santosh Kumar Dubey 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.” 56. It is thus clear that rule of compassionate appointment has an object to give relief against destitution and not 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 . 57. In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. 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 . 57. 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. 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. 58. In MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh (supra), Court has said that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and application for compassionate appointment need be decided as expeditiously as possible. 59. In Union of India Vs. V.R. Tripathi AIR 2019 SC 666 , reiterating the basic principles in regard to grant of compassionate appointment, Court said that object of compassionate appointment 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. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to 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 for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to 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 for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Court further said that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general Rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 60. In State of Himanchal Pradesh and others Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 , Court said: “... 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 recognizes 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 dependant 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 fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment.” 61. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment.” 61. Hence, looking to the above ocean of binding authorities, I am of the opinion that here is a case where a direction for compassionate appointment after almost two decades would neither be legal nor just nor constitutional and consistence with scheme of such appointment. 62. In view of above exposition of law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 63. Dismissed.