ORDER : I.A. No. 1884 of 2024 1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 174 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application, the delay of 174 days in preferring the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 1884 of 2024 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 57 of 2023 Prayer 4. The instant Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 10 is directed against order dated 14.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.S. No. 3148 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the request made by the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of his father in harness, has been rejected, by respondent No. 3, having been refused to interfere by the learned Single Judge. Facts 5. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the petition which reads for the event of factual aspects as under: (i) The father of the writ petitioner namely, Parmanand Tamsoy, Employment No. 00334046 was a permanent employee of the State Bank of India and he had joined his service on 21.12.1987 on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and he was going to retire in the month of December, 2019. In the meantime, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 03.11.2018 due to Heart Attack, during his working period. (ii) The father of the petitioner had joined the service of the State Bank of India Branch of Manendragarh in 1987 and from there he was transferred to Regional Office, Shahdol, in the month the June, 1992 and remained there till July, 1998. Thereafter, the deceased employee was transferred to Jagannathpur Branch and remained there till July, 2005. Thereafter, the deceased employee was transferred to Tonto Branch of State Bank of India and he remained there till February, 2010 and from there he was transferred to State Bank of India, Chaibasa Branch and thereafter he was transferred to Noamundi Branch in the year, 2014 and he remained there till his sad demise. (iii) At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he was working as Special Assistant in the Branch of Noamundi, in the State Bank of India and while working he had a severe heart attack and as such he expired on 03.11.2018. (iii) At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he was working as Special Assistant in the Branch of Noamundi, in the State Bank of India and while working he had a severe heart attack and as such he expired on 03.11.2018. (iv) The service of the deceased employee was regularized by a memorandum given by Branch Manager of Manendragarh on 21.06.1988. The appellant’s father was proved an I-card of State Bank of India wherein his designation has been written as Special Assistant from the SBI, Noamundi Branch. (v) After his death widow of the deceased employee namely Sunita Tamsoy has filed a representation on 16.01.2019 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Golmuri Branch wherein she has requested to give employment to her son Sri Avinash Tamsoy (petitioner herein) in any status on the compassionate ground. (vi) The petitioner has again filed a representation to the Regional Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Golmuri Branch on 14.09.2020 for considering his case for compassionate appointment. 6. It is evident from the factual aspect that writ petitioner who claims himself B. Tech degree holder had made an application for consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground due to demise of his father in harness who was working in the Respondent No. 1-Bank. 7. The request was made by the way of representation, but no relief was granted for his appointment on compassionate ground. 8. The petitioner being aggrieved has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.S. No. 3148 of 2020. 9. The respondent Bank has appeared and had taken stand inter alia in the counter affidavit that as per the scheme, which was invoked at the time of death of father of the writ petitioner, the mother of the writ petitioner had already taken the ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lakh) on 29.03.2019. This fact is well within the knowledge of the petitioner, since he was witness to that transaction. The ground has been taken by referring the aforesaid scheme that once the benefit of ex-gratia amount which has been received, then there is no question of consideration for appointment on the compassionate ground. 10. 6,00,000/- (Six Lakh) on 29.03.2019. This fact is well within the knowledge of the petitioner, since he was witness to that transaction. The ground has been taken by referring the aforesaid scheme that once the benefit of ex-gratia amount which has been received, then there is no question of consideration for appointment on the compassionate ground. 10. The learned Single Judge after considering the aforesaid scheme has dismissed the writ petition by coming to the conclusive finding that benefit under the said scheme has already been availed and hence there is no question of consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on the compassionate ground. 11. Hence, writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said order approached this Court by filing the instant intra court appeal. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant 12. Mr. P.K. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent bank in not providing the appointment on the compassionate ground is highly arbitrarily and illegal and not in terms of the scheme come up by the respondent Bank. The Authorities while not considering the same has seriously faulted and when the same was brought to the notice of this Court by filing writ petition, even the same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents: 13. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank while defending the impugned order, has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order reason that as per the scheme the ex-gratia amount or the compassionate appointment, either one is to be provided to the dependent of the deceased employee and the writ petition was filed by suppressing the fact to the matter i.e. the mother of the writ petitioner has already accepted the ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- as per the legal calculation made on the basis of the criteria furnished in the scheme, which has also been acknowledged by the writ petitioner, since he was witness to the said transaction. 14. 14. Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid scheme and also considering the fact that the ex-gratia amount has already been received by the mother of the petitioner, hence there is no question of consideration for the appointment on the compassionate ground, so far as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly declined to pass positive direction by dismissing writ petition, as such impugned order requires no interference. Analysis 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 16. This Court before entering into legality and propriety of the impugned order, we think fit to refer herein that appointment on compassionate ground is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, even then some of the establishments have been made out in the scheme to provide appointment upon the compassionate ground. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Public Instructions 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. Dieinharness 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.” 17. The law is also settled that there cannot be any deviation from the scheme which has been floated by one of the establishments, reference in this regard made in the judgment rendered in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 209 : (2007) 4 SCC 778 as under: “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. 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. (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.” Judgment has also rendered in the case of State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. 18. Now adverting into the factual aspects of the instant case it is evident that the scheme, upon which the writ petitioner is claiming the appointment on compassionate ground, has been appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition which is also part of the present appeal. 19. It is evident from the aforesaid scheme that the policy decision has been taken for payment of ex-gratia amount. It has further been decided that either ex-gratia amount or appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided to the dependent of the deceased employee, claiming the appointment on compassionate ground. 20. For ready reference the relevant part of the aforesaid scheme is referred herein: “E-Circular P & HRD S. No. 1147/2014-15 Circular No. CDO/P&HRD-PM/65/2014-15 Saturday, December 27, 2014. It has further been decided that either ex-gratia amount or appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided to the dependent of the deceased employee, claiming the appointment on compassionate ground. 20. For ready reference the relevant part of the aforesaid scheme is referred herein: “E-Circular P & HRD S. No. 1147/2014-15 Circular No. CDO/P&HRD-PM/65/2014-15 Saturday, December 27, 2014. Pausha 1936 (S) (i) SBI SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. (ii) SBI SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF EX-GRATIA LUMPSUM AMOUNT IN LIEU OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. ................................. 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” or “B-2.” (B) Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of Compassionate Appointment with following modifications: Existing Ex-gratia Scheme Revised Ex-gratia Scheme (effective from 05.08.2014) Cadre Maximum Amount of Ex-gratia Minimum 50 % Amount of Exgratia payable on account of not fulfilling penury norms of monthly income of family less than 60% of last drawn salary of deceased employee net of taxes Maximum Amount of Ex-gratia Minimum 50% Amount of Ex-gratia payable on account of not fulfilling penury norms of monthly income of family less than 75% of last drawn salary of deceased employee net of taxes Supervising Rs. 10.00 lac Rs. 5.50 lac Rs. 14.00 lac Rs. 7.00 lac Clerical Rs. 9.00 lac Rs. 4.50 lac Rs. 12.00 lac Rs. 6.00 lac Subordinate Rs. 8.00 lac Rs. 4.00 lac Rs. 10.00 lac Rs. 5.00 lac (C) The dependants of deceased employees falling under Scheme (A) i.e. where death is treated as in “Exceptional Circumstances” will have the option to chose either compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lump sum amount as per the eligibility under the scheme. Scheme of compassionate appointment on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases in State Bank of India. ................................. 19. GENERAL ................................. (vii) Under no circumstances benefits of both ex-gratia payment and compassionate appointment can be sought/granted to the dependents of any employee under what so ever circumstances.” 21. Scheme of compassionate appointment on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases in State Bank of India. ................................. 19. GENERAL ................................. (vii) Under no circumstances benefits of both ex-gratia payment and compassionate appointment can be sought/granted to the dependents of any employee under what so ever circumstances.” 21. The scheme since, provides that either ex-gratia amount or appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided in case of death of the bread earner in harness, if such candidates are otherwise eligible to hold the post. 22. Here it has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the ex-gratia amount has already been received by the mother of the writ petitioner to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- as per the calculation based upon the Tabular chart available in the scheme vide cheque dated 29.03.2019 and it is also evident that the petitioner was one of the witness in the aforesaid transaction and this very fact was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge in the counter affidavit. 23. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the spirit of the scheme that is either the ex-gratia amount or appointment on the compassionate ground is to be provided, since the mother of the writ petitioner has already received the ex-gratia amount, hence the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusive finding that the petitioner being one of the dependents and lost the right of consideration for appointment on the compassionate ground that led the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 24. Since, the law is well settled as referred herein above that there cannot be any deviation from the scheme and further appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed i.e. as a matter of right, since, it in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since, the mother of the writ petitioner has already availed the benefit of the aforesaid scheme by receiving the ex-gratia amount, hence the petitioner is having no entitlement to claim consideration for his appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme envisaged by the respondent Bank. 25. The Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts since has dismissed the writ petition, therefore, we are of the considered view that the order impugned requires no interference. 26. Accordingly, the instant appeal lacks merit and as such this appeal is dismissed. 27. Pending I.A. if any, stands closed.