Judgment : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr, rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. Also, under challenge is a report of the Committee of Officers dated 16.07.2024, recommending a rejection of the petitioner's proposal for compassionate appointment as well as the decision of the Committee of Officers dated 29.08.2024, resolving to decline the petitioner's claim. 2. The petitioner's father, the late Suraj Pal, was a Class IV employee at the Punjab National Bank,('Bank' for short) last posted at Branch Gulawati, District Bulandshahr. He passed away in harness on 05.03.2021, due to a heart attack, while in the care and management of the Metro Hospital. He left behind a widowed mother, Premwati Singh, wife Kamlesh, daughter Pooja and two sons, Arjun Singh and Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner. After Suraj Pal's demise, the petitioner's wife, Kamlesh, represented the matter before the Bank, seeking compassionate appointment for him. The petitioner's brother Arjun Singh as well as sister Pooja filed affidavits of no objection as regards the petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment. The petitioner asserts that he possesses the essential qualifications for appointment to a considerable post with the Bank under the compassionate appointment scheme then prevalent. He possesses a certificate of intermediate education, that he earned in the year 2022 from the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education. After the petitioner's father's demise, his mother, Kamlesh, also did not survive for long. She suffered from ill heath and passed away on 11.01.2022. The family spent a considerable sum of money in paying for the petitioner's father's and mother's treatment. 3. At the time of his demise, Suraj Pal was in receipt of salary to the tune of ?24110 per 24110 per mensem. After his death, no sum of money was paid by the Bank to his dependants. The petitioner asserts that a considerable sum of money was spent on his mother's treatment, after his father passed away. He has annexed a photostat copy of Kamlesh's bank account, besides that of his father's, Suraj Pal, to prove the fact. It is the petitioner's case that he does not have a suitable source of livelihood and works as a casual labourer in the village, though he is the holder of an intermediate certificate. He has annexed a photostat copy of Kamlesh's bank account, besides that of his father's, Suraj Pal, to prove the fact. It is the petitioner's case that he does not have a suitable source of livelihood and works as a casual labourer in the village, though he is the holder of an intermediate certificate. He has been issued a certificate in this regard by the Village Pradhan. 4. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application before the Bank, seeking compassionate appointment on 26.11.2022, stating all facts and circumstances of the family. Since no action was taken by the Bank, the petitioner instituted Writ - A No. 22164 of 2022, seeking to secure compassionate appointment for himself. The said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage on 31.01.2023, after hearing learned Counsel for the Bank and acting on his statement that the petitioner's application is under active consideration of the Bank and would be considered and decided within fifteen days. This Court directed the Bank to decide the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment within next fifteen days, strictly in accordance with law. The Bank was also directed to intimate the petitioner of the decision within 24 hours. 5. The case of the petitioner is that acting on the orders passed by this Court on 31.01.2023, the Bank rejected his claim for compassionate appointment, without considering the financial condition of the petitioner, that is to say, the dependants of the deceased's family. The remark in the order of rejection is that the petitioner's monthly income from all sources is more than 60% of the notional gross salary of the deceased employee (net of notional tax), as per relevant policy guidelines. The petitioner pleads that he has lost his father and mother, involving considerable expenditure incurred in the treatment. His brother, Arjun Singh, lives separately along with his own family. The petitioner, who was dependent on his father, has plunged into a sudden economic crisis. 6. It is also averred that the petitioner's mother, the late Kamlesh, was drawing a family pension to the tune of ?24110 per 13,288 per mensem, which she received till December, 2021. She died on 11.01.2022, whereafter, family pension, too, has gone away. The petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh receives a monthly salary of ?24110 per 15,274, who lives separately with his family comprising his wife and two children. He stays separately since the year 2017. She died on 11.01.2022, whereafter, family pension, too, has gone away. The petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh receives a monthly salary of ?24110 per 15,274, who lives separately with his family comprising his wife and two children. He stays separately since the year 2017. The deceased's family are, therefore, left without a source of income. They were totally dependent upon him. 7. The petitioner has come up with a case that after his father's demise, the deceased's family received terminal dues from the Bank to the tune of ?24110 per 987358. It is urged that the entire sum of terminal dues as well as other savings have been spent in his father's and mother's treatment, and the family are left with no resources. The petitioner's case is that the respondent- Bank have calculated the total income of the deceased's family at a sum of ?24110 per 33745.73, worked out in the manner that a sum of ?24110 per 5283 has been regarded as income from monthly interest from terminal dues, ?24110 per 13288 per month as the deceased’s wife’s family pension and ?24110 per 15274 per month as the deceased's other son's (Arjun Singh) salary. The petitioner has averred that there is no Fixed Deposit in any of the banks, yielding the hefty interest of ?24110 per 5183 per mensem. Since Kamlesh passed away on 11.01.2022, the family pension has also ceased. The petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh, is living separately, as already asserted, since the year 2017, with a family of his own, comprising his wife and children to support. His income is, therefore, not one that can be reckoned towards the income of the deceased's family. The petitioner says that he has to fend for himself and can hardly make ends meet, working as a casual labourer. 8. A short counter affidavit was filed by Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 25.10.2024. A short rejoinder was filed on 27.10.2024. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 dated 07.11.2024, and a further short counter affidavit, on 19.11.2024. A second counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 16.12.2024. 9. With so much of pleadings exchanged, this petition was admitted to hearing on 17.12.2024, which proceeded on that day, but remained inconclusive. A second counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 16.12.2024. 9. With so much of pleadings exchanged, this petition was admitted to hearing on 17.12.2024, which proceeded on that day, but remained inconclusive. The roster changed, on account of which, this matter was assigned to me, under the orders of His Lordship the Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 15.01.2025. The matter was finally heard and judgment reserved. 10. Heard Mr. Amit Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank. 11. In paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit dated 07.11.2024, calculation of the petitioner's eligibility under the compassionate appointment scheme has been set forth. The relevant scheme for compassionate appointment is carried in HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as modified by the HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021. The calculation for determining the petitioner's eligibility, as pleaded in the counter affidavit, is as follows : 8. That in view of the laid down procedure the application of Sh. Sanjay Kumar was processed. The details which was considered by the committee of officers are as under: Particulars of the family of the deceased employe e Sr No. Name Relations hip Age Qualifi cation Marital Status Whether employed Details of income 1 Kamlesh Wife 49 Illiter ate Widow No Family Pension Rs. 13288.02 2 Sanjay Kumar Son 23 10+2 Single No Nil 3 Arjun Singh Son 30 5th Married Yes, PTS in PNB (Emp Id 5151619), Rs. 15274.08 4 Pooja Daughter 33 8th Married No Nil ? 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 450665.67 Housing Loan Nil Gratuity 741010.74 Clean OD 105419.42 Leave Encashment 142137.2 Personal Loan 266036 Financial Aid 50000 Festival Loan 25000 TOTAL (A) 1383813.61 TOTAL (B) 396455.42 NET TERMINAL DUES RECEIVED FROM BANK (A-B)= Rs. 987358.19 c) Family Pension : Rs. 13288.02 d) At the time of his death, the monthly gross salary received by the employee was Rs. 41805.06 ? Calculation of Eligibility of the Applicant under the Relevant Scheme : The relevant details for determining eligibility of the dependent family members for employment as per the above provisions are given as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 13288.02 d) At the time of his death, the monthly gross salary received by the employee was Rs. 41805.06 ? Calculation of Eligibility of the Applicant under the Relevant Scheme : The relevant details for determining eligibility of the dependent family members for employment as per the above provisions are given as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Total Amount of Terminal Dues 1383813.61 2 Total Amount of Bank Loans 396455.42 3 Net Amount of Terminal Dues (1-2) 987358.19 4 Total amount of other investments Nil 5 Loans against other investments, if any Nil 6 Net amount of other Investments Nil 7 Monthly interest on Net Terminal dues (as at S.no.3) @6.30% (Maximum FD Interest of Bank applicable for staff) 5183.63 8 Monthly income from other investments (as at S.no.6)@6.30% Nil 9 Amount of monthly Family Pension 13288.02 10 Any other income (Salary of Shri Arjun Singh, Emp ID 5151619) 15274.08 11 Total Monthly income (7 to 10) 33745.73 12 Notional Gross Monthly Salary of Deceased (Feb 2021) 41805.06 13 Amount of notional Income Tax deducted 1097.75 14 Salary (Net of notional tax) 40707.31 15 Eligible Amount (60% of 14) 24424.38 16 Whether eligible for compassionate Appointment? NO 12. The case for denial of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is pleaded in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit, which must be quoted for every word of it. It reads : 9. That the total last drawn salary (net of taxes) was Rs. 40,707.31 and the eligible amount being 60% comes to Rs. 24,424.38. The total monthly income of the family from all sources comes to Rs. 33,745.73 which is more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary net of taxes (Rs. 24,424.38) of the deceased employee. Hence, the Committee of Officers found that Shri Sanjay Kumar son of Late Shri Suraj Pal Singh was not eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of above provisions of the Scheme. 13. Learned Counsel for parties have furthered their submissions more or less in tune with the parties’ pleadings. 14. The question is if under the scheme for compassionate appointment, current in the bank at the time of the petitioner's father's demise, is he eligible for compassionate appointment? 15. We have carefully heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the Committee's reasoning for discarding the petitioner's claim. 14. The question is if under the scheme for compassionate appointment, current in the bank at the time of the petitioner's father's demise, is he eligible for compassionate appointment? 15. We have carefully heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the Committee's reasoning for discarding the petitioner's claim. The reckoning of the petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh's income along with the deceased's family's income is an approach that is absolutely perverse. Arjun Singh is an independent man with a wife and two children to support. He lives separately since the year 2017, when the deceased was still around. Even if he stayed in the same house, it would make no difference at all. He has his own employment and a family to support. In the same house, there can be two homes. Therefore, tagging Arjun Singh's monthly income as part of the deceased's family's monthly income is the result of a perverse reasoning. Arjun Singh's income has to be excluded from the deceased's family income, which would reduce the dependant family's income, as Mr. Bhatnagar admits, to a figure of ?24110 per 18471.65. 16. But, this is not the end of the matter. The total sum of terminal dues received on account of the deceased's demise is a figure of ?24110 per 987358, from which, a monthly income of ?24110 per 5183.63, on the basis of interest of 6.30% (maximum Fixed Deposit interest of bank applicable for staff) has been inferred. This item of 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. The petitioner claims that the sum of money received in terminal dues has been spent in the treatment of the deceased and the petitioner's mother, besides drawing on the corpus of other investments that the family had. 17. It is not reasonable to think that any sum of money would have been spent out of the deceased's terminal dues received from the Bank on his treatment as such, because the terminal dues would have, in any case, been received after the deceased passed away. But, a perusal of the deceased's wife's statement of account from 03.10.2021 to 02.11.2021 shows that substantial withdrawals shown there could be the money spent on the deceased's wife's treatment, as she passed away soon after the deceased employee’s demise. But, a perusal of the deceased's wife's statement of account from 03.10.2021 to 02.11.2021 shows that substantial withdrawals shown there could be the money spent on the deceased's wife's treatment, as she passed away soon after the deceased employee’s demise. What was spent in medical treatment of the deceased's wife is a matter that requires to be closely scrutinised, before drawing a conclusion if the entire sum of money paid in terminal benefits was available as investment with the deceased's family, yielding a monthly income. The proof of expenditure ought have been annexed by the petitioner, and, if not that, the petitioner should have been asked to produce the relevant vouchers etc. In the absence of a clear determination that the terminal dues were not spent on the deceased's wife's medical treatment, a blanket inference, that this sum of money was available to the deceased's family, and now the petitioner has a source of monthly income by interest, is patently flawed. 18. The more important aspect in this calculation of denial for the petitioner is consideration of the family pension that the deceased's wife received for a short while. The deceased passed away on 05.03.2021, while his wife expired on 11.01.2022. She passed away, therefore, within the space of ten months after her husband's demise. The deceased's family, therefore, were in receipt of family pension for a very small period of time. This period of time cannot be regarded as one stabilising the family and bringing them out of the financial crisis, that they plunged into, upon the deceased employee’s sudden demise. If the widow would have lived on for a relatively longer period of time, it could be said that the family pension would account towards the deceased's dependants' family income. The extremely short- lived feature of the family pension in this case would not serve to reckon the deceased's dependents’ total income. 19. We were persuaded by Mr. Bhatnagar to accept his submission that family income has to be reckoned precisely on the date of the deceased's demise. Notwithstanding the fact that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right, but one created by statutory rules or employer's policy, carried in administrative circulars, as in this case, a policy, once there, has to be reasonably construed. It cannot be applied in an arbitrary manner. The purpose is to bail out the dependants of the deceased from financial crisis. Notwithstanding the fact that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right, but one created by statutory rules or employer's policy, carried in administrative circulars, as in this case, a policy, once there, has to be reasonably construed. It cannot be applied in an arbitrary manner. The purpose is to bail out the dependants of the deceased from financial crisis. A widow, surviving a few months after the employee’s death and receiving pension for a short period of time, cannot be regarded as a factor that would stabilise the dependent family members and enable them to tide over the financial crisis. 20. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we are of clear opinion that not only the deceased's other son's income, who is an independent man, has to be excluded from the calculation of the deceased's dependant's family income, but also the pension that the deceased employee’s widow received for a few months before she passed away, leaving behind the petitioner with no means. 21. The reliance placed by Mr. Bhatnagar upon the authority of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh , (200) 4 SCC 778 we are afraid, would not be of much assistance to the respondents. The reason is that the respondents have evaluated the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in manifest error, committing a blunder of numerical nature. They have added to the income of the deceased employee’s family, represented by the petitioner, sums of money that were not at all relevant to reckon, as already remarked. 22. Learned Counsel for the respondents has next placed reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court in General Manager, State Bank of India and others v. Anju Jain , (2008) 8 SCC 475 . He has invited our attention to the following remarks in Anju Jain (supra) : 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. 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. 23. It is true that it is always open to the employer to devise a formula to determine a threshold of eligibility, based on financial circumstances of the deceased’s family, in order to enable them to a consideration for compassionate appointment. There is nothing inherently unfair or discriminatory about it. But, the formula, once devised, as already said, cannot be applied in an arbitrary fashion in order to reject a claim for compassionate appointment. Considerations irrelevant under the employer’s scheme or a perverse application of principles embodied in the scheme is not to be countenanced. It is true that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality in matters of public employment, but, compassionate appointment is a class that is constitutionally valid, if the employer chooses to provide for it, in terms of their policy. Once that policy is forged into statutory rules or circulars, there has to be an even-handed, fair and just application to all such claims, that are put forth, upon the demise of a deceased employee by his dependants, as defined under the scheme. It is not the respondents’ case that the petitioner is not a member of the deceased’s family, as defined under the scheme. They have discarded the claim on the basis of working out an income for the deceased’s family, that is absolutely not there. 24. It is not the respondents’ case that the petitioner is not a member of the deceased’s family, as defined under the scheme. They have discarded the claim on the basis of working out an income for the deceased’s family, that is absolutely not there. 24. There is not much cavil about the principle or the fact that a married son, living apart from the deceased’s family, with his wife and children, cannot have his income reckoned towards the deceased’s family’s income. The more subtle issue, that is involved here, is about the pension that was paid to the widow until she was alive for a short while - less than a year after the deceased’s demise. If the widow had lived for a reasonably long period of time, long enough for the petitioner, definitely a dependant of the deceased’s, to settle himself in life and get over the sudden crisis brought about by the deceased employee’s passing away from this mortal world, different conditions would have applied. The test, we think, that would be just and fair to apply, well-grounded in reasonableness, as understood under the Constitution, would be if the financial crises, that the employee’s sudden demise created, has blown over. Indeed, not in this case. The deceased passed away on 05.03.2021 and his widow died on 11.01.2022. The short spell of time that the family pension enured to the benefit of the deceased employee’s family, was not long enough to provide the petitioner with a reasonable degree of opportunity to find for himself suitable employment. The time period, we think, that would be reasonable, cannot be placed in a straight-jacket formula, but still, it should be long enough to enable a surviving and young dependant of the deceased employee to stake claim for public employment or find other means of livelihood. Decidedly, in our opinion, a time period of less than a year is not that long, where the crisis brought on by the employee’s demise can be said to be a matter of history. 25. The respondents definitely faltered in not accounting for the money spent out of terminal dues on the deceased’s widow’s aliment, while alive. It had to be taken note of and counted out of the funds available for investment. If the medical expenditure was reimbursable and was actually reimbursed, it would be a different matter, but then, that finding has to be recorded. It had to be taken note of and counted out of the funds available for investment. If the medical expenditure was reimbursable and was actually reimbursed, it would be a different matter, but then, that finding has to be recorded. The evaluation of the petitioner’s claim, where a recurring monthly income has been read to the credit of the deceased employee’s family, has to be understood and revaluated in the aforesaid perspective. Likewise, revaluation of the petitioner’s claim must be one that places out of consideration the petitioner's brother, Arjun Singh’s salary of ?24110 per 15274 per mensem. Also, the family pension, which the wife received, while alive, must be discounted. 26. The respondents are, therefore, obliged to reconsider the petitioner’s claim with a different set of figures in terms of their policy. Else, the policy would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. 27. The compassionate appointment policy, though cannot be modified by the Court about the parameters of entitlement for a candidate to establish his claim, but, it is not that the Court would fold its hands and permit an absolutely arbitrary, unfair and perverse application of the principles to evaluate a compassionate appointment scheme prescribed by the respondents’ policy, rule or circular itself. We think, in this case, there has been an arbitrary evaluation of the petitioner's claim, taking into consideration credits to the family income, that are absolutely not there. 28. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr is hereby quashed. Likewise, the report of the Committee of Officers dated 16.07.2024 and the decision of the Committee of Officers dated 29.08.2024 are also quashed. A mandamus is issued to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr and the Committee of Officers of the Bank, designated under the HRMD Circular No. 495 dated 26.03.2020, as modified by HRMD Circular No. 550 dated 09.02.2021, to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, bearing in mind the remarks carried in this judgment. Thereafter, orders shall be made on the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr. 29. Thereafter, orders shall be made on the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr. 29. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.