JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.09.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4526 of 2019 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been rejected by the authority on the ground that the day when the deceased employee, i.e., the father of the writ petitioner, had died, there was no scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, has been accepted by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition so far as it relates to the appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, however, so far as the condition stipulated in the scheme regarding payment of ex-gratia amount, the same has been directed to be paid within the stipulated period of 08 weeks. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the appellant that his father, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma was initially appointed on 18/01/1985 on the post of Accountant in Vananchal Gramin Bank. 2(i) After serving the respondent Bank for 32 years and 04 months, due to brain hemorrhage, the father of the appellant died on 01.05.2017 in harness and at the time of death 07 years 03 months’ service was remaining. 2(ii) The mother of the appellant, i.e., the wife of deceased, filed a representation on 30.05.2017 addressing the Respondent No.2 praying therein for payment of all death cum benefit as well as for providing employment on compassionate ground to her younger son, Aman Kumar, appellant herein. 2(iii) The mother of the appellant again filed an application on 26/02/2018 praying therein that in place of compensation amount, employment to her son Aman Kumar on compassionate ground be provided. 2(iv) It is the further case of the appellant that all the retirement benefit of the deceased employee like Provident Fund, Gratuity, Insurance, Leave Encashment, EPFO and SBI Life a sum of total Rs.31,26,112/- has been calculated in favour of Geeta Kumari, the mother of the appellant but the appointment on compassionate ground has not been given. 2(iv) It is the further case of the appellant that all the retirement benefit of the deceased employee like Provident Fund, Gratuity, Insurance, Leave Encashment, EPFO and SBI Life a sum of total Rs.31,26,112/- has been calculated in favour of Geeta Kumari, the mother of the appellant but the appointment on compassionate ground has not been given. 2(v) Being aggrieved, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4526 of 2019 has been filed praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma on the ground that in view of revised Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground/payment of ex-gratia in Vananchal Gramin Bank dated 18.03.2019, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 2(vi) The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the writ petition holding that on the date when the father of the writ petitioner had died, there was no scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the ex-gratia amount has been directed to be paid within the stipulated period of 08 weeks. 2(vii) Against the aforesaid order, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 3. It appears from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading made on behalf of the writ petitioner that the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma, was initially appointed on 18.01.1985 as Accountant in the Vananchal Gramin Bank and died in harness on 01.05.2017. 3(i) The retiral benefit of the deceased employee like, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Insurance, Leave Encashment, EPFO and SBI Life have been calculated and a sum of Rs.31,26,112/- has been paid in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner, who happens to be the legally married wife of the deceased employee. 3(ii) The mother of the writ petitioner filed representation before the Respondent No.2 on 30.05.2017 praying therein for payment of death-cum-retiral benefit as well as to provide employment on compassionate ground to her younger son, the writ petitioner herein. 3(iii) The aforesaid prayer has again been made on 26.02.2018. 3(ii) The mother of the writ petitioner filed representation before the Respondent No.2 on 30.05.2017 praying therein for payment of death-cum-retiral benefit as well as to provide employment on compassionate ground to her younger son, the writ petitioner herein. 3(iii) The aforesaid prayer has again been made on 26.02.2018. The decision has not been taken, even though, according to the writ petitioner, he is entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground in view of the condition stipulated in the subsequent scheme which has come into being on the basis of adoption by the respondent Bank on 18.03.2019 wherein as per Clause 8.2, the consideration ought to have been made so far as the appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, since, the said condition confers power upon the authority to consider the cases of dependent of such deceased employees who have died five years ago from the date of effectiveness of the aforesaid scheme, i.e., from 18.03.2019. 3(iv) The grievance having not been redressed, therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4526 of 2019 was filed. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the scheme dated 18.03.2019 since has come into being subsequent to the death of the father of the writ petitioner, who died in harness on 01.05.2017, hence, the subsequent scheme dated 18.03.2019 cannot have its retrospective application. 3(v) The learned Single Judge by not accepting the argument of the writ petitioner regarding applicability of the condition stipulated under Clause 8.2, however, has passed an order for making payment of ex-gratia amount as per the scheme which was in-vogue as on the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner. 3(vi) The said order is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 4. Mr. Prem Mardi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that Clause 8.2 is very specific wherein the condition stipulated therein provides for consideration of request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical ground of the employees took place even five years ago. 4. Mr. Prem Mardi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that Clause 8.2 is very specific wherein the condition stipulated therein provides for consideration of request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical ground of the employees took place even five years ago. 4(i) According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the death since took place on 01.05.2017, which is coming under the fold of the period five years from 18.03.2019 and hence the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered under Clause 8.2 and should not have been thrown merely on the ground that the day when his father has died there was no provision for providing appointment on compassionate ground. 4(ii) It has also been contended that the scheme dated 18.03.2019 has come into being subsequent to the death of the father of the appellant but the aforesaid condition regarding consideration of the candidature of the dependent of the deceased employee is required to be considered since the scheme itself provides for its consideration even when the death or retirement on medical ground of employee took place long back even five years ago. 4(iii) The contention, therefore, has been made on behalf of the writ petitioner that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid condition in right perspective and, as such, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the thoughtful consideration has been given based upon the settled position of law that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground or any rule/regulation will have prospective effect. 5. Per contra, Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the thoughtful consideration has been given based upon the settled position of law that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground or any rule/regulation will have prospective effect. 5(i) It has been contended that herein since the death took place on 01.05.2017, there was scheme contains a condition for payment of ex-gratia amount in favour of the dependent of the deceased employee and the scheme which has been implemented on 18.03.2019 in supersession of the earlier scheme which was in-vogue at the time of death of the father of the writ petitioner, will have the prospective effect, therefore, the same has not been found to be appropriate for its consideration by taking a decision to provide appointment on compassionate ground and considering the aforesaid legal position, the learned Single Judge, after recording specific finding to that effect in the impugned order, has passed order by declining to pass positive direction so far as it relates to consideration of appointment on compassionate ground is concerned. 5(ii) It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge on the basis of the force of the scheme as on the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner has directed for making payment of ex-gratia amount in terms of 2008 scheme. 5(iii) Learned counsel for the respondent bank, therefore, has submitted on the basis of the aforesaid premise that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, has referred Clause 8.1 and 8.2 by advancing his argument that Clause 8.1 and 8.2 is to be read together and from conjoint reading of the condition stipulated therein, it would be evident that the scheme is to be made applicable with prospective effect. 8. 7. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, has referred Clause 8.1 and 8.2 by advancing his argument that Clause 8.1 and 8.2 is to be read together and from conjoint reading of the condition stipulated therein, it would be evident that the scheme is to be made applicable with prospective effect. 8. This Court, before interpreting Clause 8.2, deems it fit and proper to consider the principle to apply in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground since the law is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be asked by way of right since it is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others v. K.R. Vishwanath [ (2005) 7 SCC 206 ], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court taking into consideration its various judgment in paragraph 9 held as under : “9. As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [ (1996) 5 SCC 308 ], it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. 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. 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. Die-in-harness scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi case [ (1996) 5 SCC 308 ] it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In Rani Devi case [ (1996) 5 SCC 308 ] it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar [ (1994) 2 SCC 718 ] it was pointed out that 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 contemplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [ (1994) 4 SCC 138 ] that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.” 8(i) Even though appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but different organizations, by way of piece of benevolence measure, are having with the scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground to provide minimum succor to the dependent of the deceased family. 8(ii) Therefore, the law has also been laid down that if there is a scheme floated by the establishment, the appointment on compassionate ground strictly to be considered on the basis of the applicability of the said scheme, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 , for ready reference paragraph 20 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred and quoted hereunder as :- “20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” 8(iii) The purpose of making reference of the judgment about the applicability of the scheme as referred hereinabove, i.e., in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Others (Supra), is that the issue which required to be considered by this Court herein is that the scheme dated 18.03.2019 can be held to be prospective in nature and whether it is applicable in the case of the writ petitioner since, his father has died in harness on 01.05.2017, i.e., prior to coming into effect of the scheme dated 18.03.2019. 8(iv) There is no dispute that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be made on the basis of the scheme which is in-vogue at the time of death of the deceased employee but it is also equally settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the condition stipulated in the scheme is to be followed in strict sense and there cannot be any deviation from the scheme as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Others (Supra) wherein it has been held that request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. 8(v) Herein, in the scheme of the year 2008 although there was no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground, rather, only provision made therein was to make payment of ex-gratia amount in favour of the dependent of the deceased employee. But, a new scheme in supersession to the scheme of 2008 was floated on 18.03.2019 providing therein a condition for appointment on compassionate ground also as under Clause 8.1 and 8.2 under the caption heading “Time Limit For Considering Applications”, for ready reference Clause 8.1 and 8.2 are being referred hereunder as :- “8.1. Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case. 8.2. However, Bank can consider request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. While considering such belated requests, it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the employee in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of circumspection. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to make appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases may, therefore, be taken only at the Board level.” 8(vi) It is evident from Clause 8.1 that application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case, meaning thereby, the application is to be filed by the eligible candidate within five years from the date of death or retirement on medical ground. 8(vii) Clause 8.2, however, confers power upon the Bank to consider request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. 8(viii) If Clause 8.1 and first part of Clause 8.2 will be read together, it suggests and clarifies that maximum period to make application as per Clause 8.1 is five years and the Bank has also been conferred with the power to also consider the application, if the application of such dependent of deceased employee where the death or retirement on medical ground took place even five years ago. 8(ix) The aforesaid provision does clarify so far as it relates to the death took place prior to coming into effect of the scheme dated 18.03.2019 that the period for consideration will be five years prior, i.e., up to 18.03.2014. 8(x) But, if the condition stipulated under Clause 8.1 will be considered, the spirit of the said provision is that in case of death took place five years ago, the application is required to be filed within five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case. 8(xi) The meaning of Clause 8.1 and part of clause 8.2 will be that the dependent whose bread earner has died on or after 18.03.2019, it is incumbent upon the dependent to make application within five years from the date of death. Herein, the death took place on 01.05.2017 and hence, the application was required to be filed by 30.04.2022. 8(xi) The meaning of Clause 8.1 and part of clause 8.2 will be that the dependent whose bread earner has died on or after 18.03.2019, it is incumbent upon the dependent to make application within five years from the date of death. Herein, the death took place on 01.05.2017 and hence, the application was required to be filed by 30.04.2022. 8(xii) Clause 8.2 further clarifies regarding the belated request, i.e., if the death took place five years ago, by stipulating therein how the decision is to be taken in favour of the dependent and a condition has been stipulated therein that while taking such decision, the competent authority is to consider the concept of compassionate appointment which is based upon to meet out the need for immediate assistance to the family of the employees in order to relieve it from economic distress. The authority is also required to consider the very fact as to whether the family has been able to manage somehow all these years and whether they at all require any means for subsistence. Therefore, the authority has been conferred with the power to examine such cases with great deal of circumspection. The aforesaid decision will be taken at the Board level. 8(xiii) The second part of the condition stipulated under Clause 8.2 if read with first part, i.e., if the case of the dependent of the deceased employee who has died five years ago from the date of coming into effect of the scheme dated 18.03.2019, the criteria for providing appointment on compassionate ground will be to consider their financial means so as to assess that the dependent of the deceased employee are at all in penury so as to achieve the very object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground and for that the authority has been conferred with the power to examine with great deal of circumspection so that if the dependent of the employee concerned has been able to manage the family of the deceased employee for a period of five years then there is no requirement to provide appointment on compassionate ground. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has submitted that the aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, since it has come on record that a sum of Rs.31,26,112/- has been paid to the mother of the writ petitioner and the said amount cannot be said to be less in quantum so as not to be a means for subsistence to the family of the deceased and, therefore, the said requirement, according to the learned counsel, has already been exercised. 9(i) But, we are not in agreement to such submission since any rule, regulation or scheme confers power upon the authority, the same is required to be exercised by the authority concerned and not by the court of law. 9(ii) The law is well settled that if a thing has been decided to be done, it is strictly to be done in accordance with the policy decision. Here, the decision has been taken by the authority as would appear from Clause 8.2 wherein the authority has been conferred with the power to examine such cases so as to assess the financial means of the family of the deceased employee in a case where the death took place five years ago from the date of coming into effect the scheme dated 18.03.2019. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Ors., AIR (1964) SC 358, wherein it has been held at paragraph 8 as under:- 25. “....its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted....” 9(iii) In the case of Babu Verghese and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 422 , wherein it has been held at paragraphs 31 & 32 as under : “31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under : “Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-judge bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as a statutory principle of administrative law.” 9(iv) In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 633 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 27 as under : “..... it is a normal rule of consideration that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself....” 10. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position, is of the view that the learned Single Judge while coming to the conclusion by taking into consideration the amount of Rs.31,26,112/-, which has been paid in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner, to be sufficient means so as not to provide appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be said to be justified. 10(i) The aforesaid direction also cannot be said to be justified according to our considered view since the learned Single Judge has taken the view that on the date of death of the deceased employee there was no condition stipulated in the scheme in-vogue to provide appointment on compassionate ground then where is the question again to consider by showing justification that since the amount of Rs.31,26,112/- has been paid, there is no justification in claiming for appointment on compassionate ground, rather, the learned Single Judge ought to have taken decision on the basis of the scheme which was in-vogue on the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner and accordingly directed to release the ex-gratia amount in favour of mother of the writ petitioner in view of the Scheme of 2008 then where is the question to again consider by taking the ground of amount paid by way of post-death benefit while applying the subsequent scheme dated 18.03.2019. 10(ii) Although the law is well settled that the day when the death took place the condition stipulated in the scheme is to be considered but it is also equally settled that if any condition has been stipulated in the scheme, then the authorities are duty bound to take a decision on the basis of the aforesaid scheme. 10(iii) It has been informed at Bar that the ex-gratia amount, as has been assessed, has been refused to be accepted by the widow of the deceased employee. 11. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with the aforesaid fact, rather, we are deciding the issue on the legal premise and based upon the aforesaid reasoning, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with. 12. Accordingly, order dated 07.09.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No.4526 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 14. In consequence thereof, the writ petition also stands allowed. 15. The matter is remitted before the competent authority, i.e., the Board, to consider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner in the light of the provision contained under Clause 8.2. 15(i) Let such decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. The matter is remitted before the competent authority, i.e., the Board, to consider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner in the light of the provision contained under Clause 8.2. 15(i) Let such decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15(ii) It is made clear that the authority is required to take decision strictly in accordance with the stipulation made under Clause 8.2 regarding the financial viability as referred therein. 16. Consequently, I.A. No.4571 of 2023 also stands disposed of.