JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents, the officers of the Punjab National Bank,(‘Bank’ for short) and the petitioner thinks that they have done so arbitrarily, committing a manifest error of law. He assails the decision of the Bank to refuse his application for compassionate appointment on account of his father’s death in harness. The petitioner has challenged various orders and resolutions passed by the officers and Committees of the Bank, declining his claim, to which a moreful allusion would be made later in this judgment. 2. The petitioner’s father served the Indian Army, which he left upon his retirement from service. He availed the benefit of being an ex- serviceman and was appointed as an Armed Guard with the Bank on 16.12.2014. His date of birth was 20.07.1973. The petitioner’s father, the late Satyaveer Singh was a permanent employee of the Bank. He died in harness on 17.12.2016, suffering a cardiac arrest. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme applicable on 11.06.2020. He made another application on 19.02.2021. At the time of his demise, the petitioner’s father was survived by his mother Ramwati, aged about 72 years, his wife Sudesh Devi aged about 45 years, a son Monu Nagar, aged about 27 years, another son, Sonu Nagar (the petitioner), aged about 22 years, still another son, Praveen, aged about 18 years, and, Sonika, a married daughter aged 24 years. These facts about the deceased’s family profile are clearly set forth in the application that the petitioner made for compassionate appointment to the Bank. It was supported by a ‘No Objection’ from the other family members, saying that they would have no objection if the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment were considered by the Bank. 3. The petitioner, on the strength of the no objection certificate, which was on affidavit by the other survivors of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment, as aforesaid. The Bank raised certain objections by their letter dated 23.02.2022, which the petitioner, through an affidavit, caused to be removed. These objections were with regard to dependency of the family members upon the deceased. 4. The petitioner says that he moved an application before the Branch Manager (Currency Chest), Ambedkar Marg, Ghaziabad, pressing his claim for compassionate appointment. The Bank raised certain objections by their letter dated 23.02.2022, which the petitioner, through an affidavit, caused to be removed. These objections were with regard to dependency of the family members upon the deceased. 4. The petitioner says that he moved an application before the Branch Manager (Currency Chest), Ambedkar Marg, Ghaziabad, pressing his claim for compassionate appointment. The Branch Manager last mentioned visited the petitioner’s Village Atta, Post Office Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr and appraised the circumstances of the deceased’s family. He verified the particulars about the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner’s application was considered in all its details by a Committee comprising two officers - the Chief Manager and a Senior Manager, who, vide their memo dated 30.12.2022, found the petitioner not entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment dated 26.03.2020, as revised vide circular dated 09.02.2021 and 17.07.2021. 5. After consideration by the Committee as aforesaid, recommendations were placed for decision before another Committee of three officers, comprising an Assistant General Manager (HRDD), the Deputy General Manager (HRMD) and the General Manager (HRD). They tick-marked their approval to the recommendations of the two- member committee, declining the petitioner’s claim. The Committee of three Managers of the Bank, who held the petitioner ineligible, have not dated their orders, but the orders appear to be one passed in December, 2022, as the footnote of the orders would show. On the basis of the decision of the three-member Committee, a formal order dated 28.04.2023 was issued, where the Chief Manager (HRD), Kavinagar, Ghaziabad rejected the petitioner’s claim. The reason assigned to decline the petitioner’s claim all through is that since the income of the family from all sources, relevant under the Scheme is more than 60 per cent of the notional gross salary of the employee, the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was not sustainable. 6. Aggrieved by the resolution of the Committee dated 30.12.2022 and the orders formally rejecting the petitioner’s claim passed by the Chief Manager (HRD), Ghaziabad dated 20.03.2023, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 7. It may be clarified here that though this writ petition was heard along with Writ-A No. 16506 of 2024, as certain questions of fact and law were common involving the Bank, but we think that looking to the very different facts in both matters, separate judgment should be passed. 8. 7. It may be clarified here that though this writ petition was heard along with Writ-A No. 16506 of 2024, as certain questions of fact and law were common involving the Bank, but we think that looking to the very different facts in both matters, separate judgment should be passed. 8. A notice of motion was issued on 25.11.2024, in response to which, the Bank has filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner made an application for amendment, which was granted on 17.12.2024, leading him to file an amended copy of the writ petition, incorporating the necessary pleas. The petition was admitted to hearing on 18.03.2025, which proceeded forthwith and judgment reserved. 9. Heard Mr. Virendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank. 10. The thrust of the submissions made by Mr. Virendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Committee, which appraised the petitioner’s case and put up their recommendations for consideration by the other Committee for decision, all dated 30.12.2022, took into consideration an irrelevant item towards the income of the deceased’s family, on the foot of which, they rejected the petitioner’s claim in manifest error. It is urged that they tagged along with the income of the family, a sum of ?35,337 per month, which is the income of Monu Nagar, an independent son of the deceased, who was not dependent upon the deceased for his livelihood and has a family of his own to take care of. He resides separately. The submission is that since the total income of the deceased’s family is the guiding criteria, fixed at less than 60% of the gross monthly salary last drawn by the deceased, entitling a dependent of his to compassionate appointment, the Committee’s calculation to discard the petitioner’s claim has gone all wrong. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in their report, the Committee, which appraised the petitioner’s claim, have held that the family received terminal dues from the Bank in the sum of ?2,23,329. He submits that what the Committee ignored from consideration are the terminal dues as well as other savings that the family had spent for survival, and, particularly, defraying the expenditure in marriage of the deceased’s daughter and the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner does not have income from any other source. He submits that what the Committee ignored from consideration are the terminal dues as well as other savings that the family had spent for survival, and, particularly, defraying the expenditure in marriage of the deceased’s daughter and the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner does not have income from any other source. It is also submitted that the Committee also ignored the fact that there is a loan, which the petitioner has taken to support his livelihood, which is still outstanding. 11. It is next submitted that the calculation of the family members' income from all sources, fixing it at a sum of ?64,219.41 per month is patently erroneous. It is said that ?1488.85 has been worked out on account of monthly interest payable on the net terminal dues at the rate of 8% per annum, ?3084.44 per month as monthly income from other investments, also at the rate of 8% and ?20,309 per month as the sum of money payable on account of family pension received by the deceased’s widow from the Army. To this has been added, as already pointed out, in manifest error, a sum of ?35,337, being the salary drawn by the petitioner’s brother, Monu Nagar, who has nothing to do with the deceased’s family and lives independently with his own family, comprising his wife and children. A further sum of ?4000 per month, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner says, has been added on account of the petitioner’s monthly income. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no fixed deposit with any Bank, and, therefore, the monthly income of ?1488.86, earned on the net terminal dues paid to the surviving family of the deceased, is without basis. It is argued most persuasively that Monu Nagar is a married man, who lives separately along with his family, comprising his wife and children at Sri Gandhi Nagar, Rajasthan since 2015, that is to say, before the deceased employee passed away. There is absolutely no basis to tag his income along with the income of the deceased’s family, comprising his dependants. 12. It is next pointed out that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he does manual work as a labourer in the village and the locality. He has taken an agricultural loan from the State Bank of India, Branch Gulaoti, District Bulandshahr to establish his livelihood. The loan is in the sum of ?1,47,000. 12. It is next pointed out that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he does manual work as a labourer in the village and the locality. He has taken an agricultural loan from the State Bank of India, Branch Gulaoti, District Bulandshahr to establish his livelihood. The loan is in the sum of ?1,47,000. The petitioner has earned his B.Com degree. The financial condition of the family is very penurious. The respondents have calculated the deceased’s family’s income in manifest error, without any basis, to reach those figures that are there in the recommending Committee’s report, on the foot of which, the decision-making Committee have resolved to reject the petitioner’s claim. It is also emphasized that the family do not have any funds with them invested in the fixed deposit and that assumption by the Committee is bereft of the deceased’s family’s financial details. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme applicable, that is to say, the one in cases of deaths of the employees occurring prior to 26.03.2020, except CoViD-19 cases in terms of the HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020 and its subsequent revisions. 13. Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents points out that upon the demise of Satyaveer Singh, the petitioner’s application was considered. He has given out, in tabular form, the family profile of the deceased employee and the family’s income, that was taken into consideration by the Committee of Officers assigned to decide the compassionate appointee’s case. The said information, which Mr. Bhatnagar has placed before the Court in tabular form, is shown below : ? Particulars of the family of the deceased employee Sr. No. Name Relation ship Age Qualification Marital Status Whether employed Details of income 1 Sudesh Devi Spouse 45 - Widow No Army Pension Rs. 20,309/- 2 Monu Nagar Son 27 12th Married Yes Rs. 35,337/- 3 Sonu Nagar Son 22 B.Com. Married No Rs. 4.000/- (Agri. Income) 4 Praveen Son 17 12th Single No Nil 5 Sonika Daughter 24 12th Married No Nil 14. The financial position of the deceased’s family, that was considered by the Committee appointed by the Bank to consider compassionate appointment claims, has been placed by Mr. 35,337/- 3 Sonu Nagar Son 22 B.Com. Married No Rs. 4.000/- (Agri. Income) 4 Praveen Son 17 12th Single No Nil 5 Sonika Daughter 24 12th Married No Nil 14. The financial position of the deceased’s family, that was considered by the Committee appointed by the Bank to consider compassionate appointment claims, has been placed by Mr. Bhatnagar in the following terms : Financial Position of the family of the Deceased a) Immovable Property: One house self occupied b) Terminal Dues received from the bank: Dues Paid Amount (in Rs.) O/s Loans with Interest Amount (in Rs.) Provident Fund /NPS 1,03,136.00 Nil Gratuity 25780 O/s in Clean OD Leave Encashment 14143 Vehicle Loan Contributor Fund 30000 Festival Loan Financial Aid 50000 Society Loan with Bank's permission TOTAL (A) 2,23,329.00 TOTAL (B) Nil NET TERMINAL DUES RECEIVED FROM BANK (A-B) = Rs. 2,23,329.00 c) Family Pension : Nil d) Army Pension : Rs. 20,309/- Amount Received / Lilkely to be received from other sources/investments : Rs. 4,61,251/- (LIC) and Rs. 1,431.60 (Deposit) At the time of his death, the monthly gross salary received by the employee was Rs. 22,068.52 15. Mr. Bhatnagar has then invited the Court’s attention to the Committee’s calculation of the petitioner’s entitlement under the compassionate appointment scheme. This, again, according to the learned Counsel, is a tabular description, which he has placed before the Court. It is depicted below : Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Total Amount of Terminal Dues 2,23,329.00 2 Total Amount of Bank Loans Nil 3 Total amount of other investments 4,62,682.60 4 Loans against other investments, if any Nil 5 Net amount of other Investments 4,62,682.60 6 Monthly interest on Net Terminal dues (as at S.no.1) @ 8% (Maximum FD Interest of Bank applicable for staff) 1488.56 7 Monthly income from other investments (as at S.no.3) @ 8% 3084.55 8 Amount of monthly Family Pension (Army Pension) 20309 9 Any other income Monthly income of Monu Nagar Monthly income of Sonu Nagar 35,337.00 4,000.00 10 Total Monthly income (7 to 10) 64219.41 11 Notional Gross Monthly Salary of Deceased (November, 2016) 22068.52 12 Amount of notional Income Tax deducted Nil 13 Salary (Net of notional tax) 22068.52 14 Eligible Amount (60% of 14) 13241.11 15 Whether eligible for compassionate Appointment? NO 16. NO 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the last salary drawn by the deceased (net of taxes) was ?22068.52, and, in order for the petitioner to be eligible for compassionate appointment, his dependent family members should have an income less than 60% of the employee’s last gross salary drawn, net of taxes. The total monthly income of the family from all sources is a sum of ?64219.41, which is more than 60% of the last gross salary, net of taxes, that the deceased drew. It is for this reason that the Bank’s Committee for Compassionate Appointments did not find the petitioner eligible under the scheme. 17. It is next contended by Mr. Bhatnagar that the sole contention that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised is that the monthly income of the petitioner’s brother, Monu Nagar, amounting to a sum of ?35337 per month, cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the family income of the deceased at the time of his demise, inasmuch as Monu Nagar was a married man, with his own family, independent of the deceased’s family. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that even if Monu Nagar’s monthly income is excluded, while calculating the family’s income, the family would still have an income of ?28882 per month per month, which is much above the last gross salary, net of taxes, drawn by the deceased employee, to wit, ?22068.52. The deceased’s family, therefore, are not in indigent circumstances, nor is the petitioner, within the meaning of HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as modified by HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021. It is urged that in these circumstances, the petitioner has no case for consideration of his compassionate appointment claim. It is argued that compassionate appointment is offered on humanitarian grounds and gives expression to the rule of equality in matters of public employment. It is not a vested right and this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, cannot be swayed by sympathetic considerations. 18. We have carefully heard learned Counsel for parties, perused the Committee’s reasoning for discarding the petitioner’s claim and the order impugned. 19. We must say at once that so far as the Committee’s analysis of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, the reckoning of Monu Nagar’s income along with the deceased’s family income after him, is absolutely impermissible. We have carefully heard learned Counsel for parties, perused the Committee’s reasoning for discarding the petitioner’s claim and the order impugned. 19. We must say at once that so far as the Committee’s analysis of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, the reckoning of Monu Nagar’s income along with the deceased’s family income after him, is absolutely impermissible. Monu Nagar is an independent man with his own wife and children, living separately since the time when the deceased was around. Even if he stayed in the same house, it would make no difference. He has his own employment and a family to support. Therefore, tagging Monu Nagar's monthly income as part of the deceased’s family's monthly income is the result of perverse reasoning. Monu Nagar’s income has to be excluded from the deceased’s family income, which would reduce the dependent family’s income, as Mr. Bhatnagar admits, to a figure of ?28882 per month. This figure too, we think, not merely on impressions, is much inflated. 20. The total sum of terminal dues received on account of the deceased’s demise is a figure of ?223329, from which, a monthly income of ?1488.86, on the basis of an interest of 8% per annum (maximum Fixed Deposit interest applicable for bank staff) has been inferred. This item, in the deceased’s monthly income, is sans material. It is not that the terminal dues received by the surviving family of the deceased have been wasted or misspent. This sum of money, together with whatever has been regarded for the deceased as the corpus of other investments, according to the petitioner, has been spent in solemnising the deceased’s daughter’s marriage. The other investments, that have been taken into consideration, is a sum of ?462682. From this sum of money, a monthly income of ?3084.55 has been inferred. We have already indicated that this sum of money, even if regarded to be there on account of investments of the family, has been well utilised, according to the petitioner, in solemnising the deceased’s daughter’s marriage. The sum of ?223329 paid by the Bank to the deceased’s dependant family members, after his demise, is not a princely sum, going by the contemporary worth of money at the time when Satyaveer Singh passed away and in the short run thereafter. 21. The sum of ?223329 paid by the Bank to the deceased’s dependant family members, after his demise, is not a princely sum, going by the contemporary worth of money at the time when Satyaveer Singh passed away and in the short run thereafter. 21. This holds true for the sum of ?462682.60 on account of other investments inferred for the deceased's dependent family. The total sum of ?686011.60 held to the credit of the deceased’s surviving and dependant family is a modest sum of money, which the family would have spent in the deceased’s daughter’s wedding. There is no reason to infer, even if the respondents are absolutely right, that this money was available to the family. That the petitioner’s case that it was all spent in solemnising his sister’s marriage, is a claim not to be disbelieved. The sum of ?686011.60 (?223329+?462682.60) as a corpus, available to the deceased’s family, has to be discounted, and, a fortiori, the monthly income held to be derived from the said claim. 22. Quite apart, the availability of ?223329 in the hands of the deceased’s family after his demise can be accepted as that spent in his daughter’s wedding. The other sum of ?462682 shown under the head of “Other Investments” is an inference based on pure conjecture. No evidence aliunde has been shown to us during hearing, particularly, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, that this sum of money amounting to ?462682 was, in fact, available to the deceased’s family. The respondents are a Bank and they should have provided the particulars of the availability of this sum of money in an account of the deceased’s widow or other family members in order to credit the family with its possession. There is vague assertion that this sum of money is likely to be received from other sources/investments. This is pure conjecture in the absence of specific material to show that this sum of money was, in fact, available in any kind of security or deposit to the deceased’s family. 23. Therefore, from the deceased’s family income, we have to further deduct a sum of ?4573.41. Deducting this sum of money from the monthly income of ?28882 per month, acknowledged by Mr. Bhatnagar during hearing as the deceased’s family’s income, would be reduced to a sum of ?24308.59. 23. Therefore, from the deceased’s family income, we have to further deduct a sum of ?4573.41. Deducting this sum of money from the monthly income of ?28882 per month, acknowledged by Mr. Bhatnagar during hearing as the deceased’s family’s income, would be reduced to a sum of ?24308.59. This is the monthly income, on the foot of which, the deceased’s entitlement to compassionate appointment was to be considered by the Bank. They, instead, considered it on an inflated figure of ?64219.41 per month. Mr. Bhatnagar very fairly said before us, as already remarked, that the deceased’s income, that ought have been considered by the Committee, was a figure of ?28882 per month, though he hastened to add that, that figure would not place the petitioner’s case under the policy in any better stead. We have already found that Mr. Bhatnagar’s fair and candid concession also does not represent the correct figure of the deceased’s family’s monthly income. It is a still lower sum of money per mensem, that is to say, ?24308.59. 24. It now has to be examined if the petitioner has a right to be considered for compassionate appointment. It would be well to remember that the right to compassionate appointment is not an inherent right. It is governed by the employer's policy, sometimes expressed in statutory rules, and at others, in administrative circulars. Since the right is the creature either of a statute embodying a policy or a policy expressed in administrative circulars, the right is no more and no less than what the rule or the policy circular says it is. Also, even if a right to a consideration for compassionate appointment is there under the rules or the policy, there is no vested right to be actually appointed, inhering in the dependant of a deceased employee. Of course, if a rule or policy is there and everything is the same as between two candidates, the respondents cannot differentially apply the policy on a pick-and-choose basis. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh , (2007) 4 SCC 778 where it has been held : 10. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh , (2007) 4 SCC 778 where it has been held : 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. 12. The competent authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of the employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant Bank in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into consideration. The authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz. the agricultural land. 13. In our considered opinion, the High Court itself could not have undertaken any exercise to decide as to what would be the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival and whether it had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The only question the High Court could have adverted itself to is whether the decision-making process rejecting the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment is vitiated? Whether the order is not in conformity with the scheme framed by the appellant Bank? The only question the High Court could have adverted itself to is whether the decision-making process rejecting the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment is vitiated? Whether the order is not in conformity with the scheme framed by the appellant Bank? It is not even urged that the order passed by the competent authority is not in accordance with the scheme. It is well settled that the hardship of the dependant does not entitle one to compassionate appointment dehors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be. The income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into consideration according to the scheme which the High Court altogether ignored while remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the appellant Bank. It is not a case where the dependants of the deceased employee are left “without any means of livelihood” and unable to make both ends meet. The High Court ought not to have disturbed the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant Bank that the respondent was not living hand-to-mouth. As observed by this Court in G.M. (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary [ (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] the High Court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court may amount to varying the existing scheme framed by the appellant Bank. Such a course is impermissible in law. 25. It has also to be remembered that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality in public employment, which is otherwise governed by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is designed to save from penury a family which has plunged into the abyss of economic crisis upon the sudden demise of the breadwinner. A scheme for compassionate appointment or the rules, if they provide for evaluation of the financial circumstances of the family, before offering compassionate appointment to one of the dependant family members, brings about an intelligible differentia, bearing a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. If the compassionate appointment policy or the rules of an employer devise a formula, as in the present case, to determine a threshold of eligibility based on the financial circumstances of the family, there is nothing illegal, unfair or discriminatory about it. If the compassionate appointment policy or the rules of an employer devise a formula, as in the present case, to determine a threshold of eligibility based on the financial circumstances of the family, there is nothing illegal, unfair or discriminatory about it. In this connection, reference may be made to the remarks of the Supreme Court in General Manager, State of India and others v. Anju Jain , (2008) 8 SCC 475 where it is observed : 31. We are of the view that both the courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi-government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, the State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependants of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment. 26. Though we have already discarded the submission of Mr. Bhatnagar that in order to know the financial status of the family, the income of the other family members, namely, other sons, has been included in the policy of the petitioner, we again think that it is quite an irrelevant consideration. Given the contemporary social milieu, families are nuclear; not joint. A husband and wife fend for themselves and their minor children. They are no longer part of a bigger family, as in yesteryears. What is really to be tested is if the family, after the deceased's demise, are in indigent circumstances. 27. Given the contemporary social milieu, families are nuclear; not joint. A husband and wife fend for themselves and their minor children. They are no longer part of a bigger family, as in yesteryears. What is really to be tested is if the family, after the deceased's demise, are in indigent circumstances. 27. It is true that in order to evaluate the financial circumstances of the family for the purpose of offering compassionate appointment, terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including pension and income of the family from other sources, such as agricultural land, has to be taken into consideration by the employer. It is after taking into consideration all these matters that the employer must reach a conclusion if circumstances of the family are, indeed, penurious. The assessment has to be one under the employer's policy embodied in rules or circulars. In this connection, we may harp back to the principle laid down in Somvir Singh (supra) in the most eloquent terms, to which, allusion has been made in the earlier part of this judgment. 28. Regarding the principles on which compassionate appointment proceeds, reference must be made to Canara Bank v. Ajithumar G.K. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 Dwelling upon the objective of compassionate appointment and what is really meant by penurious circumstances, it was held in AjithKumar G.K. (supra) : 29. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner. 30. The observation in Kunti Tiwary (supra) noted above seems to assume significance and we draw inspiration therefrom in making the observation that no appointment on compassionate ground ought to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf. 31. Thus, examination of the financial condition to ascertain whether the respondent and his mother were left in utter financial distress because of the death of the bread earner is not something that can be loosely brushed aside. 32. This takes us to the third sub-issue tasking us to consider whether there has been a proper and reasonable assessment of the financial condition of the family consequent upon death of the respondent's father. The order of the MD & CEO has been extracted above, verbatim. What transpires from a bare reading of such order is that the deceased left behind him his widow, the respondent and three daughters as his surviving heirs. All the daughters were married and settled. Only his spouse and son could count as dependants. The daughters were not shown to be dependent on the deceased while he was alive and in service. The respondent and his mother were residing in their own house. That apart, the deceased was 4 (four) months away from retirement on superannuation. It has been indicated in such order what the last drawn net salary of the deceased was and had he survived even after superannuation, what quantum of money would he have received as monthly pension. Also, the amount of monthly family pension being paid to the respondent's mother is indicated. It has been indicated in such order what the last drawn net salary of the deceased was and had he survived even after superannuation, what quantum of money would he have received as monthly pension. Also, the amount of monthly family pension being paid to the respondent's mother is indicated. Although on behalf of the respondent a contention has been raised that there has been no proper assessment of his financial condition, rather strangely, the figures referred to by the MD & CEO have not been disputed at all. We are, thus, left with no option but to proceed on the basis that the same are correct. If, indeed, the respondent's father would have received a pension amount of Rs. 6398/- and burdened to feed himself as well as his two dependants, viz. his spouse and son, the amount of family pension initially sanctioned, i.e., Rs. 4637.92 could not have, by any stretch of imagination, be seen as insufficient or inadequate for feeding two mouths. It is also not in dispute that the net terminal benefits in a sum of Rs. 3.09 lakh paid to the respondent/his mother would have been the same amount which the deceased would have received as terminal benefits after superannuation, had he been alive. Thus, it is not a case where the death of the respondent's father brought about such dire consequence and/or disastrous outcome that the respondent and his mother would have to cope with miserable effects which, as the respondent urged, could be remedied only by offering an appointment on compassionate ground. We regret our inability to bead idem with learned counsel for the respondent. 29. What, therefore, has to be seen is if the petitioner, or so to speak, the family of the deceased were, indeed, in penurious circumstances on account of his demise. It is not, in the slightest doubt, that assessment of the deceased’s family's financial condition has to be made according to rules of the policy relating to compassionate appointment and not in accordance with what the Court might think to be entitling penury for the deceased’s family. This is a logical corollary of the foremost precept that compassionate appointment is no inherent right, but a concession given by the employer according to its policy framed for the purpose, if at all, and carried in its rules or circulars. This is a logical corollary of the foremost precept that compassionate appointment is no inherent right, but a concession given by the employer according to its policy framed for the purpose, if at all, and carried in its rules or circulars. The entitlement to compassionate appointment would, therefore, have to be viewed by those financial standards of the deceased’s family being indeed hand-to-mouth, as the policy for compassionate appointment of the particular employer envisages. Here, the policy in vogue is carried in HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as modified by the HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021. 30. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's case is governed by the pre- revised scheme applicable for deaths up to 31.03.2021, except CoViD cases. There, the foremost criteria is that the total monthly income of a family, from all sources, should be less than 60% of the last drawn monthly salary, net of taxes, by the deceased employee. The respondents considered the deceased’s gross monthly salary for the month of November, 2016 to be a figure of ?22068.52 and since no tax was deducted, as the recommendations of the Committee dated 20.03.2023 would show, 60% of the last drawn salary was worked out to a figure of ?13241.11. The deceased’s widow was admittedly in receipt of a family pension from the Army in the sum of ?20,309 per month, to which may be added the petitioner's income of ?4000, which would lead to the figure of ?24,309. The deceased’s last notional gross salary, net of taxes, has been worked out to a figure of ?22,068.52, 60% whereof has already been noticed to be ?13241.11. Juxtaposed against this figure is the deceased’s family's income of ?24,309, at the time of his demise. This figure does not bring the petitioner's case where the deceased’s family were eligible to have a member of theirs appointed on compassionate basis in terms of the dying-in-harness policy applicable to the respondents, as carried in circulars dated 26.03.2020 and 09.02.2021 mentioned above. The petitioner would be eligible under the respondent's compassionate appointment policy if the income of the deceased’s family were ?13241.11 or less, applying 60% of the notional gross monthly salary last drawn by the deceased’s standard, stipulated under the policy, as the entitling criteria. 31. The petitioner would be eligible under the respondent's compassionate appointment policy if the income of the deceased’s family were ?13241.11 or less, applying 60% of the notional gross monthly salary last drawn by the deceased’s standard, stipulated under the policy, as the entitling criteria. 31. We may emphasise that a mere lowering of standard of the deceased’s family from what they would have enjoyed if the deceased was around is not the test to hold the family entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment under the respondents' compassionate appointment policy. It has to be judged according to the standards fixed by the compassionate appointment policy in force in the employer's establishment at the time when the deceased passed away. The applicable policy clearly stipulates a monthly income much below than that which the deceased’s family, by all standards, have. This is, therefore, not even a case where, despite excluding some very arbitrary and irrational figures that the Committee took into consideration for declining the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, we ought direct a reconsideration of that claim on the basis of income of the deceased’s family, as we have determined it. On the basis of that income too, the compassionate appointment policy would not work to make the petitioner eligible for consideration, as shown above. 32. In the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order and the resolutions of the Committees, declining the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. 33. In the result, this petition fails and stands dismissed. 34. There shall be no order as to costs.