JUDGMENT : 1. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Court today. It is taken on record. Let it be numbered by the office. 2. Parties have exchanged affidavits. 3. Admit. 4. Heard forthwith. 5. Heard Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner laying a challenge to the order dated 'nil', annexed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. The compassionate appointment has been claimed by the petitioner on account of his father's death in harness. 7. The petitioner's father, the late Gopal Chandra was a permanent employee of the State Bank of India, who was posted as a Sweeper in the office of the Branch Manager, N.R.I. (Computerized Branch), State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kutchehari Road, Prayagraj. He died in harness on 17.10.2016. The late Gopal Chandra left behind him his widow, Smt. Sumitra Devi, four daughters, to wit, Smt. Reena Devi, Smt. Renu Devi, Smt. Ruchi Devi, Km. Shilu and a son, Chandan Kumar, the petitioner here. There is no issue about the fact that the petitioner's father died in harness or that he was a permanent employee of the State Bank of India or that he has left behind family members as above described. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the deceased employee's son. The petitioner has asserted that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste, called 'Hela'. The said fact has also not been denied by the respondents. 8. The petitioner passed his High School in the year 2013 and the Intermediate Examination in the year 2016, both conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. After the petitioner's father's demise, the petitioner's mother moved an application before the Branch Manager, N.R.I. (Computerized Branch), State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kutchehari Road, Prayagraj, seeking compassionate appointment for her son under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Dying in Harness Rules'). In response, the petitioner received a memo dated 10.02.2017 from the Branch Manager, saying that there is no scheme for compassionate appointment in the Bank. In response, the petitioner received a memo dated 10.02.2017 from the Branch Manager, saying that there is no scheme for compassionate appointment in the Bank. The Branch Manager, however, conveyed that they had introduced a new scheme in place of compassionate appointment, providing for the payment of lump-sum ex gratia in cases of death in harness. Thus, the Branch Manager declined the petitioner's claim. A similar memo dated 28.03.2017 was issued by the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, conveying the Bank's inability to appoint the petitioner in the absence of a scheme for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's mother was again apprised about the substitute for compassionate appointment, to wit, ex gratia payment in lump-sum. 9. The petitioner instituted a writ petition, titled as Chandan Kumar v. The Chairman Principal Officer and others, Neutral Citation No. 2022 AHC 80411, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment. The said petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of an order dated 25.05.2022, directing the respondent Bank to consider and decide the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months of the date of production of a certified copy of that order. It is in compliance with the said order that the Deputy General manager (B & O), State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Prayagraj has passed the order impugned, rejecting the petitioner's claim. 10. Aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after introduction of the scheme for compassionate appointment dated 05.08.2014 approved by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which is applicable to Banks, including the respondent Bank, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to a consideration for compassionate appointment. It is argued that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed under the scheme of the Government of India, which is called 'Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks'. The said Scheme has been enforced w.e.f. 05.08.2014 vide Ministry of Finance D.O.F. No.18/2/2013-IR dated 07.08.2014. 12. Mr. It is argued that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed under the scheme of the Government of India, which is called 'Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks'. The said Scheme has been enforced w.e.f. 05.08.2014 vide Ministry of Finance D.O.F. No.18/2/2013-IR dated 07.08.2014. 12. Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, has resisted the petition, saying that the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks introduced by the Government of India w.e.f. 07.08.2014, does not apply by its own force to the establishment of any Public Sector Bank, including the respondent Bank. It is in the nature of a proposal by the Government of India to revise the existing policy relating to compassionate appointment. It was left to the Banks to examine the scheme, accept it as such or with modifications, all to be done with the approval of the Board of Directors of the Banks concerned. It is argued that the State Bank of India has adopted the proposed scheme by the Government of India, modifying it in terms of what is called, 'SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances'. The Bank has also introduced the alternative scheme called, 'SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount in Lieu of Compassionate Appointment'. Both the Schemes, in accordance with the directions of the Government of India, have become effective in the State Bank of India w.e.f. 05.08.2014. It is pointed out that a look at the Schemes would show that after acceptance of the Government of India's proposal, the policy of the State Bank of India given expression through the two Schemes, is not much different than what it earlier was. The two Schemes, above referred, deal with the contingency of an employee dying in harness and the resultant need to bail out his family from the ensuing economic crisis. The rule is payment of ex gratia lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment, and the exception, to provide compassionate appointment, limited to the extraordinary categories envisaged under the ‘SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances’. 13. It is emphasized by the learned Counsel for the Bank that the Government of India's Scheme for compassionate appointment does not apply on its own terms, but in the form and on terms accepted by individual Public Sector Banks. 13. It is emphasized by the learned Counsel for the Bank that the Government of India's Scheme for compassionate appointment does not apply on its own terms, but in the form and on terms accepted by individual Public Sector Banks. The petitioner's case is not covered by the ‘SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances’ and has been rejected for the said reason. The learned Counsel has invited the Court's attention to those circumstances where compassionate appointment can be offered to the dependants of a Bank employee dying in harness, which he says, are not attracted to the petitioner's case. 14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, what this Court finds is that there is no cavil about the fact that the petitioner's father was a permanent employee of the Bank, who died in harness on 17.10.2016. He died after the ‘SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances’ had come into force in the establishment of the respondent Bank. 15. On perusing the material available on record, it appears that prior to the ‘SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances’, the respondent Bank had two Schemes to extend support to the members of an employee dying in harness. These were the SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances and the SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount in Lieu of Compassionate Appointment. Therefore, the respondent Bank was always following a policy of offering compassionate appointment in exceptional cases. It was upon the representation of the Indian Banks' Association carried in their letters dated 22.04.2014 and 13.06.2014 for a revision of compassionate appointment schemes in Public Sector Banks that the Government of India decided to frame a scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks w.e.f. 05.08.2014 vide a letter of the Ministry of Finance bearing D.O.F. No.18/2/2013-IR dated 07.08.2014. 16. A look at the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks framed by the Government of India, together with the contents of the letter dated 07.08.2014 issued by the Ministry of Finance, leaves this Court in no manner of doubt that the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks was a proposal to the Banks to formulate their schemes on those lines with all modifications they would desire by placing the Government Scheme before the Board of Directors of the respective Banks. In short, the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks was a model. It could be adopted as such or with modifications to it. It was all left to the Board of Directors of the Banks concerned to decide upon. This fact is evident from the contents of the demi official letter dated 07.08.2014, which was addressed by a Director in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi to the Chairman, Indian Banks' Association. The contents of the letter, which is on record as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit, read: “Kindly refer to IBA's letters No. HR&IR/KC/Govt/ 532/ 9274 dated 22.4.2014 and 13.6.2014 regarding IBA's proposal for revising the Compassionate Appointment Scheme in Public Sector Banks (PSBs). The proposal has been examined in this Department and it is decided to convey the approval of the Government on the proposal of IBA as follows: i) To open the Compassionate Appointment in PSBs on the lines of Central Government; ii) Discontinuing the provision of ex-gratia in lieu of Compassionate Appointment in PSBs.” 2. Accordingly, IBA is also requested to take appropriate action to circulate the revised Scheme to all PSBS for adoption with the approval of their respective Boards. The scheme shall be applicable from 5.8.2014. 3. This issues with the approval of Hon'ble Finance Minister.” 17. The Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks proposed by the Government of India would have given a very broad right for consideration to the dependants of employees dying in harness, but that would happen only if the Government Scheme were adopted as such. It appears that the respondent Bank were not inclined to give up their policy providing rehabilitative aid to the members of an employee dying in harness in the manner they did earlier, to wit, as a rule by payment of ex gratia lump sum, if the family were in financial distress; and, in exceptional cases, according to the Bank's specified policy. It was in this view of the matter that an Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi, addressed a memo dated 5th December, 2014 to the Chairman, India Banks' Association. It was in this view of the matter that an Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi, addressed a memo dated 5th December, 2014 to the Chairman, India Banks' Association. The relevant part of the memo dated 5th December, 2014 as aforesaid reads: “I am directed to refer to this Department's letter of even number dated 7th August, 2014 on the subject cited above and to say that State Bank of India has now approached the Government proposing for the need to continue the earlier provisions of the scheme i.e. compassionate appointment in exceptional cases or payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointments. 2. The matter has been examined in this Department and it has now been decided that all Public Sector Banks can have both the options i.e. compassionate appointment or payment of lumpsum exgratia amount. However, any of these two options can be used only when the other conditions of compassionate appointment are met. 3. This has the approval of Finance Minister. 18. The proposal was then placed before the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the respondent Bank by the Deputy Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer, State Bank of India on 10.12.2014 carrying a proposal in the following terms: “5. The Executive Committee of the Central Board is requested to approve following proposals: (I) Continuation of Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Cases and Scheme for payment of Ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment, both duly modified, as proposed in para 3(A), 3(B) and 3 (C) herein above and detailed in Annexure-I. (II) Authorization to Dy. Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer to issue clarification on various provisions under the schemes.” 19. The matter was placed before the Directors of the respondent Bank constituting the Executive Committee, which was approved by the Central Board of the Bank on 23.12.2014. Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer to issue clarification on various provisions under the schemes.” 19. The matter was placed before the Directors of the respondent Bank constituting the Executive Committee, which was approved by the Central Board of the Bank on 23.12.2014. The proposal that was placed before the Executive Committee of the Bank Board reads: “C-CDO-3 (1) SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in exceptional circumstances (II) SBI Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of Compassionate Appointment SUBMITTED a Memorandum dated the 10th December 2014 by the Deputy Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer, recommending that, for the reasons and on the terms stated therein, approval be accorded for: i. continuation of Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in exceptional cases and Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of Compassionate Appointment, both duly modified, as proposed in para 3 of the Memorandum and detailed in Annexure-I thereto; and ii. authorising Dy. Managing Director & CDO to issue clarification on various provisions under the Schemes, as detailed in the Memorandum and annexures thereto. Copies of the Memorandum and enclosures had been circulated to the Directors on the Executive Committee. Approved” 20. The ‘SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances’, therefore, provides for eligibility to a consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds in the following cases alone: “(i) Employee dying while performing official duty, as a result of violence terrorism, robbery or dacoity; or (ii) Employee dying within five years of first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is latter, leaving a dependent spouse and /or minor children.” 21. In all other cases, if the family are found deserving and entitled to compassionate appointment, ex gratia lump sum payment is to be made in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is precisely drawing on the terms of the 'SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances' that the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Bank. Admittedly, the petitioner's father did not die while performing official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity, or within five years of his first appointment before reaching the age of 30, whichever was later, and leaving behind a dependant spouse and/ or minor children. Admittedly, the petitioner's father did not die while performing official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity, or within five years of his first appointment before reaching the age of 30, whichever was later, and leaving behind a dependant spouse and/ or minor children. He did leave behind dependants in the entitled category, but does not fulfil the other criteria under the ‘SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances’ to be eligible for appointment. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Sajal Khanna v. State Bank of India through its Chairman, Mumbai and others, Neutral Citation No. – 2021 AHC 114740. In Sajal Khanna (supra), it has been observed by Vivek Agarwal, J.: “Therefore, once an option was given by the Ministry of Finance to the Indian Banks' Association and in consonance of said D.O., State Bank of India has prepared a memorandum and that memorandum in regard to provisions in lieu of it, payment of ex-gratia has been approved by the Directors of the Executive Committee, then this Court is not required to travel beyond the said memorandum because law as has been laid down in case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148 , it is settled that Courts, while considering a matter for grant of compassionate appointment, are only required to look into the policy, which was in vogue at the time of consideration of the application and nothing more or less, as an employer cannot be compelled to make compassionate appointment contrary to the policy, therefore, when examined in the light of the memorandum prepared by the State Bank of India and approved by its Executive Committee, then it cannot be said that petitioner's case has not been dealt with in consonance of the said memorandum and impugned order dated 18.6.2018, being in consonance with the said memorandum cannot be faulted with.” 22. Here, note may be taken of two decisions of the Supreme Court, on which learned Counsel for the petitioner placed emphatic reliance. He has particularly placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 . Here, note may be taken of two decisions of the Supreme Court, on which learned Counsel for the petitioner placed emphatic reliance. He has particularly placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 . Now, this Court does not find anything about the principles laid down in M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) by their Lordships that may have direct or decisive bearing on the issue involved here. The issue in M. Mahesh Kumar was that the deceased, a clerk with the Canara Bank, whose dependants had claimed compassionate appointment, died in harness on 10.10.1998. At that time, a dying in harness scheme was in force, that provided consideration for compassinate appointment to the dependants of an employee. The claim made by the dependants remained pending for a long time and in the meantime, the dying in harness scheme, that was issued vide Circular No.154 of 1993 e.e.f. 08.05.1993, was replaced with a different scheme dated 14.02.2005 in terms of the Head Office Circular No.35 of 2005. The scheme for compassionate appointment was scrapped and in lieu thereof a scheme for ex gratia payment introduced. It was in the context of these facts that the issue arose if the rights of the applicant for compassionate appointment would be governed by the Scheme of 2005 that provides for ex gratia payment in lump sum, but not compassionate appointment, or the one that came in force in the year 1993, making provision for compassionate appointment. It was in that context that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in M. Mahesh Kumar: “12. The main question falling for consideration is whether the Scheme passed in 2005 providing for ex gratia payment or the Scheme then in vogue in 1993 providing for compassionate appointment is applicable to the respondent. 13. The appellant Bank has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Jaspal Kaur case [ (2007) 9 SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578] to contend that the respondent's case cannot be considered on the basis of “Dying in Harness Scheme 1993” when the new 2005 Scheme providing for ex gratia payment had been put in place. 14. 14. In Jaspal Kaur case [ (2007) 9 SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578], Sukhbir Inder Singh employee of State Bank of India, Record Assistant (Cash and Accounts) passed away on 1-8-1999. The widow of the employee applied for compassionate appointment in State Bank of India on 5-2-2000. On 7-1-2002, the competent authority of the Bank rejected the application of Jaspal Kaur in view of the Scheme vis-à-vis the financial position of the family. Against that decision of the competent authority, the respondent filed writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had directed to consider the case of Jaspal Kaur by applying the Scheme formulated on 4-8- 2005 when her application was made in the year 2000. In that factual matrix, this Court has directed that dispute arising in the year 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that was put in place much after the dispute. 15. By perusal of the judgment in Jaspal Kaur case [ (2007) 9 SCC 571 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578] , it is apparent that the judgment specifically states that claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided in the light of the subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim.” 23. It is, therefore, apparent that the decision of their Lordships in M. Mahesh Kumar can be of little assistance to the petitioner. Rather, it reiterates the principle that compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the relevant rules in force on the date of death of the deceased. The principle that is also discernible is that the right to compassionate appointment is not an inherent right but flows from the scheme or rules applicable at the relevant point of time to the employer's establishment. 24. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of a learned Singal Judge of this Court in Smt. Neelam Singh and another v. Union of India through Ministry of Finance and others, 2020 (12) ADJ 227. He has particularly drawn the Court's attention to the following remarks in Neelam Singh (supra): “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. He has particularly drawn the Court's attention to the following remarks in Neelam Singh (supra): “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.” 25. The report of the decision in Smt. Neelam Singh does not at all show that it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks proposed by the Government of India to be adopted in each Bank was in fact a model scheme and that in the State Bank of India, it was accepted by the Board of Directors, subject to modifications and adhering to the system of two Schemes, one offering compassionate appointment in exceptional circumstances and the other ex gratia lump sum payment, where otherwise a case for compassionate appointment was made out. The decision in Smt. Neelam Singh, therefore, must be held sub silentio on the issue in hand. It is, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner either. Since, it is an admitted case that the petitioner's father is not covered by the exceptional circumstances envisaged under the 'SBI Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Exceptional Circumstances', this Court does not find any infirmity with the order impugned. 26. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. 27. There shall be no order as to costs.