ORDER : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (M.P.), Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, C.G. (for short, “the Tribunal”) by which the Original Application No. 203/119/2015 filed by the respondent/applicant had been disposed off directing the petitioners to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment sympathetically within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The brief facts, as projected by the respondent before the learned Tribunal, are that the respondent’s father Ram Naresh Nishad, who was working as an Attendant cum Technician with the petitioners, had suffered medical disability and vide order dated 10.03.2010 he was discontinued from service with one month’s salary. Thereafter, the petitioners vide their letter dated 19.10.2010 had asked the respondent’s father to inform if any of his dependents have not opted for benefits of Employees Family Benefit Scheme (for short “the Scheme”), then the petitioners may conduct enquiry for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioners have also asked the respondent’s father to inform whether any of the dependents has cleared 10th Class Examination and is not employed in Bhilai Steel Plant or any unit of Steel Authority of India. Time period was given to the respondent’s father to furnish the information upto 24.10.2010. 3. The respondent’s father expired on 19.05.2011. Thereafter, his mother submitted an application on 14.07.2011 for grant of compassionate appointment to her son who had cleared matriculation examination. In response to the application, case of the respondent was considered and rejected on 21.10.2011 as the respondent had not submitted any application for grant of compassionate appointment within 6 months and at that time, he should have cleared the matriculation examination, an essential condition which was not fulfilled by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed the original application before the Tribunal and prayed for grant of compassionate appointment. 4. The petitioners had filed their return denying the allegations made in the original application and enclosed the Scheme for providing compassionate employment in Permanent Medical Unfit (for short ‘the PMU’) cases dated 23.05.2009 and also one time measure for providing compassionate employment in PMU cases dated 16.09.2009. 4. The petitioners had filed their return denying the allegations made in the original application and enclosed the Scheme for providing compassionate employment in Permanent Medical Unfit (for short ‘the PMU’) cases dated 23.05.2009 and also one time measure for providing compassionate employment in PMU cases dated 16.09.2009. It has also been contended by the petitioners that the original application is barred by limitation and no explanation has been given, and therefore, the application is deserved to be dismissed on that count alone. It has been contended that as per Clause 4 of the PMU issued on 23.05.2009, the dependents of ex-employee applying for compassionate appointment must have the minimum qualification of matriculation and application of the dependents should reach recruitment section of Bhilai Steel Plant within 6 months of declaration of the PMU due to diseases specified in the Scheme along with all educational and other certificates. It has been further contended that respondent’s father Late Ram Naresh Nishad was declared PMU on 23.02.2010 and was separated from the role of the company on 10.03.2010. It has also been contended that the Personnel Executive of the company had sent letter to the respondent’s father on 19.10.2010 at his permanent home address informing him to submit necessary information about dependents who can be given compassionate employment. But there was no communication in this regard from the respondent’s father or the family members of the respondent. It has been further contended that on 14.07.2011, the respondent’s mother had submitted an application for grant of compassionate employment which was rejected for the reason mentioned in the memo issued by the petitioner- company on 21.10.2011. It has also been contended that on the date of separation of the respondent's father from the services of the company, respondent was not having the requisite qualification of matriculation as reflected from the mark sheet which relates to examination conducted in March, 2011. Thus, it is quite vivid that the respondent was not having the requisite qualification and have accordingly prayed for rejection of the original application. 5. The Tribunal, considering the submissions of the parties, disposed off the original application directing the petitioners to consider sympathetically the application of the respondent for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 06.04.2022, which is being challenged by the petitioners before this Court. 6. 5. The Tribunal, considering the submissions of the parties, disposed off the original application directing the petitioners to consider sympathetically the application of the respondent for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 06.04.2022, which is being challenged by the petitioners before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly as per the policy framed in this regard and any divergence from the policy is not permissible in view of the well-settled legal position and would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is a well-reasoned order and respondent having cleared matriculation examination, he fulfills the eligibility condition, and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order warranting interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It will be expedient for this Court to extract the relevant clause of the policy dated 23.05.2009. Clauses 1 and 7 are extracted below: 1. The dependent of ex-employee applying for compassionate employment must have the minimum qualification of Matriculation. 7. The application from the dependent should reach Recruitment Section of BSP within six months of declaration of Permanent Medical Unfit due to diseases specified in the scheme along with all educational and other certificates. This condition will be applicable in all those cases whether date of declaration of Permanent Medical Unfit is on or after 20.05.2009. 10. From bare perusal of the policy and considering the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that respondent’s father was declared medically unfit on 10.03.2010 and on that date, the respondent was not having minimum qualification of matriculation as evident from the mark sheet of class 10th High School examination which was conducted by Chhattisgargh Open School Examination Board, which is of the year March, 2011 and also from the application dated 14.07.2011 submitted by the respondent’s mother. Thus, the respondent was not having requisite qualification for consideration of his employment on compassionate ground. That apart, as per the policy, the application for consideration should be submitted within 6 months. Thus, the respondent was not having requisite qualification for consideration of his employment on compassionate ground. That apart, as per the policy, the application for consideration should be submitted within 6 months. The respondent’s father, despite information sent by the petitioners on 19.10.2010, had not submitted any application for grant of compassionate employment, and therefore, the claim of the respondent was rejected by the petitioners on 21.10.2011. 11. It is well-settled principle of law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the compassionate appointment is governed by the terms of the policy prevalent in this regard. Any diversion to the policy is not permissible in view of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Before adverting to the rival submissions of petitioners and respondent, it is expedient for this court to refer to some judgments of Hon’ble Supreme court dealing with law regarding Compassionate Appointment. They are as under: 13. In State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 308 , it was observed that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service and that is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. 14. In Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 192 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the object of compassionate appointment, at paragraph 8, had observed as follows : “8. 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 breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 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 breadearner 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.” 15. In State Bank of India & Another v. Somvir Singh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : “7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer.” 16. In SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. 17. In V. Sivamurthy v. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the principles relating to compassionate appointment as follows : “18. (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in Public Service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in Public Service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well- recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. (b) Two well recognized contingencies which are carved out as exceptions to the general rule are : (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the bread-winner while in service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner. Another contingency, though less recognized, is where land holders lose their entire land for a public project, the scheme provides for compassionate appointment to members of the families of project affected persons. (Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does not provide for market value and solatium, as compensation). (c). Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies. (d) Compassionate appointments are permissible only in the case of a dependant member of the family of the employee concerned, that is spouse, son or daughter and not other relatives. Such appointments should be only to posts in the lower category, that is, Classes III and IV posts and the crises cannot be permitted to be converted into a boon by seeking employment in Class I or II posts.” 18. In Union of India & Another v. V.R. Tripathi, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 646 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at paragraph 13 as follows: “13. The policy of compassionate appointment is premised on the death of an employee while in harness. The death of an employee is liable to render the family in a position of financial hardship and need. Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that the family of a deceased employee may face upon premature death while in service. The policy of compassionate appointment is premised on the death of an employee while in harness. The death of an employee is liable to render the family in a position of financial hardship and need. Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that the family of a deceased employee may face upon premature death while in service. Compassionate appointment, in other words, is not founded merely on parentage or descent, for public employment must be consistent with equality of opportunity which Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees. Hence, before a claim for compassionate appointment is asserted by the family of a deceased employee or is granted by the State, the employer must have rules or a scheme which envisage such appointment. It is in that sense that it is a trite principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. Even where there is a scheme of compassionate appointment, an application for engagement can only be considered in accordance with and subject to fulfilling the conditions of the rules or the scheme. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Union of India by the learned Additional Solicitor General is premised on the basis that there is no right to compassionate appointment. There can be no doubt about the principle that there is no right as such to compassionate appointment but only an entitlement, where a scheme or rules envisaging it exist, to be considered in accordance with the provisions.” 19. Thus, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment. The compassionate employment can be claimed only on an entitlement strictly within the scheme or rules envisaging it. 20. In State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Parkash Chand, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that direction to consider application for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee dehors policy is impermissible, and observed as under: “9. The High Court has observed that the State should consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the Government or an autonomous Board or Corporation. The High Court has observed that the State should consider cases for appointment on compassionate basis by dealing with the applications submitted by sons, or as the case may be, daughters of deceased government employees, even though, one member of the family is engaged in the service of the Government or an autonomous Board or Corporation. This direction of the judgment of the High Court virtually amounts to a mandamus to the State Government to disregard the terms which have been stipulated in Para 5(c) of its Policy dated 18-1-1990. The Policy contains a limited exception which is available only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks compassionate appointment even though one of the children of the deceased employee is gainfully employed with the State. The basis for this exception is to deal with cases where the widow is not being supported financially by her children. 10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ; SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004)7SCC 271; Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Teneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 ; SBI v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 ; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 ; Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, (2012) 11 SCC 307 ; SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739 ; and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 . 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the Policy. This is impermissible.” 21. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the Policy. This is impermissible.” 21. From the above stated legal position and also having regard to the judgment in the case of LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718 , wherein it has been pointed out that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments, it is manifest that compassionate appointment can be granted only if the requisite conditions as envisaged under the policy or scheme in question are fulfilled. 22. It is not in dispute that the respondent was not having requisite qualification within the time provided under the policy and the application for consideration was submitted belatedly. As such, the respondent was not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment on both the counts. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment sympathetically dehors the policy is not sustainable in law. Thus, the direction given by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by the Tribunal on 06.04.2022 is quashed.