ORDER : 1. Grievance of petitioner in this petition is non consideration of the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that father of petitioner late Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha while working on the post of Senior Head Messenger in State Bank of India, Branch Surajpur died in harness on 12.11.2018. After untimely death of his father, mother of petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.1 stating that after the sad demise of her husband her family is facing grave financial crises, therefore, the petitioner be provided compassionate appointment. She further submitted an application that she is not willing to take ex-gratia amount in case her son is provided compassionate appointment. The application submitted by petitioner for compassionate appointment was not considered in accordance with the circular dated 11.08.2014 and filed this petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as per circular/rules prevailing in the Bank. 10.2. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi issued letter dated 07.08.2014 and conveyed the approval of Government on the proposal of Indian Bank Association observing to open compassionate appointment in Public Sector Bank on the lines of Central Government and to discontinue the provisions of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks. The Central Government requested Indian Bank Association to take appropriate action to circulate the revised scheme. State Bank of India with whom father of petitioner was under employment at the time of his untimely death is a Public Sector Bank and therefore is under obligation to comply with the directives issued by the Central Government. Date of death of father of petitioner is 12.11.2018, which is after letter dated 07.08.2014 of the Central Government directing the Banks to open compassionate appointment and therefore, the respondents are duty bound to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner as directed in letter dated 07.08.2014. Denying compassionate appointment to petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. 4. Date of death of father of petitioner is 12.11.2018, which is after letter dated 07.08.2014 of the Central Government directing the Banks to open compassionate appointment and therefore, the respondents are duty bound to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner as directed in letter dated 07.08.2014. Denying compassionate appointment to petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. 4. Learned counsel for respondents opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondents- Bank vide circular dated 04.08.2005 introduced the scheme of payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate ground. The above scheme replaced the earlier scheme of compassionate appointment. He contended that vide circular dated 13.05.2011 Bank introduced SBI scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in exceptional cases. After receipt of communication from Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 05.12.2014 respondents Bank formulated new scheme for compassionate appointment in exceptional circumstances and scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment which was circulated vide letter dated 27.12.2014 to all its Branch. The compassionate appointment is only granted when the permanent employee of the Bank dies while performing official duties as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and secondly when the employee dies within five years of first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years whichever is later leaving behind the dependent spouse and or minor children. Case of petitioner does not fall within the exceptional circumstances. Respondents bank wrote several letter to the mother of petitioner to claim for ex-gratia amount but mother of petitioner has not claimed and refused to accept the same and again letter was sent to petitioner as well as his mother duly informing them to submit the application for ex-gratia payment. He contended that the scheme which is prevailing only mentions for compassionate appointment in exceptional cases and for others a lumpsum payment of exgratia amount and petitioner and his mother is entitled only for ex-gratia amount and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Petitioner by this petition is claiming for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father, who died in harness. The compassionate appointment is to be granted under the scheme formulated by the employer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Petitioner by this petition is claiming for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father, who died in harness. The compassionate appointment is to be granted under the scheme formulated by the employer. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner before this Court to press the claim of compassionate appointment is the letter issued by Ministry of Finance Government of India dated 07.08.2014. Content of letter is reproduced as under :- “Kindly refer to IBA’s letter 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.” 7. After the letter of Government of India and the deliberation thereafter, the State Bank of India have issued e-Circular to all its branches and offices. The relevant portion of the e-Circular is extracted below for ready reference :- “Please refer to our circular letter No. CDO/P&HRDPM/28/2005-06 dated 4th August 2005 and e-Circular Nos. CDO/P&HRD-PM/20/2011-12, CDO/P&HRDPM/ 06/2012-13 and CDO/P&HR-PM/75/2013-14 dated 13th May, 2011, 17th April, 2012 and 25th February, 2014 respectively.” 2. Following receipt of recent communication from Ministry of Finance, GOI, vide letter F.No. 18/2/2013- IR dated 5th December 2014 that all Public Sector Banks can have both the options i.e. compassionate appointment or payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank in its meeting held on 23rd December, 2014 has approved continuation of following two schemes duly modified as under :- A. Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in exceptional circumstances (As per Annexure – I and ‘B -1’, ‘B-2’) B. Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of Compassionate Appointment with following modifications :” 8. Perusal of extracted portion of e-Circular would show that it mentions the earlier circular and the scheme prevailing till 2014. Perusal of extracted portion of e-Circular would show that it mentions the earlier circular and the scheme prevailing till 2014. It also mention about the communication received from Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 05.12.2014, that Public Sector Banks can have both the options i.e. of compassionate appointment in exceptional circumstances or payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount and based upon which the Executive Committee of Central Board of the Bank in its meeting held on 23.12.2014 has approved two schemes duly modified i.e. scheme for compassionate appointment in exceptional circumstances and scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment with modification. In Annexure -1, scheme of compassionate appointment on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases in State Bank of India is prescribed under Clause – 3 of Annexure -1 ‘Objectives For The New Scheme 2014’. In the said clause, it is mentioned that the object of granting compassionate appointment in such exceptional cases is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises due to death of bread winner and mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such a source of livelihood. The coverage of exceptional cases is mentioned in Clause -5 under the head of “Coverage”, which is extracted below for ready reference :- “5. Coverage. 5.1 To a dependent family member of permanent employee of the Bank who i) dies while performing official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; or ii) dies 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.” 9. From perusal of Clause-5 it is apparent that the case of petitioner does not fall within Clause -5 within the coverage of scheme of compassionate appointment in exceptional cases. Respondents- Bank on 25.05.2017 issued another e-Circular under head of “SBI Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment, modification : removal of penury norms”. The relevant portion of the said circular is extracted below for ready reference :- “3. The matter has been examined and the Executive Committee of Central Board (ECCB) in its meeting dated 18.05.2017 has approved the removal of condition of penury norms of calculation of exgratia for expeditious release of ex-gratia in all eligible cases. The relevant portion of the said circular is extracted below for ready reference :- “3. The matter has been examined and the Executive Committee of Central Board (ECCB) in its meeting dated 18.05.2017 has approved the removal of condition of penury norms of calculation of exgratia for expeditious release of ex-gratia in all eligible cases. This will also help the family of the deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial/liquidity crises due to untimely death of bread earner. After the removal of penury norms exgratia will be calculated as under :- i. The calculation of ex-gratia will be done @ 60% of the last drawn gross salary (net of taxes) for each month of remaining service of the employee up to the age of superannuation at the time of his death/incapacitation, subject to the prevailing cadre wise ceilings and floor amount. ii) If the amount so calculated is more than the cadre wise ceiling, the maximum ceiling amount will be paid. iii.) If the amount comes to less than 50% of cadre wise ceiling, the minimum floor (fixed) amount i.e. 50% of cadre wise ceiling will be paid. iv) If the amount is more than 50% but less than the cadre wise maximum ceiling, the actual amount so calculated will be paid. 10. The letters written by the respondents-Bank to the mother of petitioner are also annexed along with reply filed by respondents intimating that she has not made any claim for ex-gratia and further intimated that payment of ex-gratia is valid up to nine months only. Further vide letter dated 25.07.2019 intimating that as per existing rules for compensatory appointments, petitioner is not eligible for compensatory appointments requesting to submit application for ex-gratia amount immediately again pointing that the period within which the claim can be made. 11. Compassionate appointment by any of the family members of deceased employee can not be claimed as a matter of right as it is not a source of employment. Compassionate appointment is to be granted under the scheme formulated and prevailing at the time of cause of action. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not issue the writ of mandamus directing employer to grant compassionate appointment beyond the terms of the scheme floated by them and prevailing on the date of death of deceased employee and consideration of the application. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not issue the writ of mandamus directing employer to grant compassionate appointment beyond the terms of the scheme floated by them and prevailing on the date of death of deceased employee and consideration of the application. Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-writ the terms of scheme for grant of compassionate appointment. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , has observed thus: “2. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration 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 in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased." (emphasis added)." 13. In case of SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. 14. In case of V. Sivamurth v. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 , Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the principles relating to compassionate appointment as follows:- “18. 14. In case of V. Sivamurth v. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 , Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized 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. 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." (emphasis supplied) 15. In State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Prakash Chand, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that direction to consider application for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee de hors policy is impermissible and observed thus:- "9. In State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Prakash Chand, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that direction to consider application for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee de hors policy is impermissible and observed thus:- "9. The High Court has observed that the State should consider compassionate cases basis by for appointment dealing with on 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. 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." 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the scheme of respondents Bank existing on the date of death of deceased employee I do not find any error in decision taken by respondents Bank rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and observing that mother of petitioner is entitled to get ex-gratia amount. 17. The respondents Bank has already observed in its letter that mother of petitioner is entitled for benefit of ex-gratia amount as per e-circular issued by the Bank time to time and further that due to the pendency of claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment they have not claimed for exgratia amount and the claim of petitioner firstly before the Bank and thereafter in this petition is pending consideration, I find it proper to direct respondents Bank to consider the claim of mother for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount because according to policy/scheme of respondent in the facts of the case widow is entitled for making her claim of lump-sum ex-gratia amount. 18. The writ petition is disposed off with the above observations and directions.