JUDGMENT : (ANANDA SEN, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is the son of the deceased Santosh Munda who died in harness on 13.12.2007 while working in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Thereafter the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court for grant of compassionate appointment by filing WP No. 468 of 2015 which was disposed of on 07.07.2015. While disposing the said writ application, the Single Judge, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that: “Unless the scheme for providing compassionate appointment envisages a situation where a minor seeking compassionate appointment can be considered for such appointment upon attaining majority without any time consciousness or limit, the same is impermissible. In the instant case, there is no such scheme in force, but if the petitioner comes within the compass of the relevant National Coal Wages Agreement, there is no embargo and/or fetter to consider his case in accordance with law.” 3. The petitioner thereafter in terms of the aforesaid order filed a representation before the respondent-Authority which was considered and dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.05.2017. In the impugned order it has been held that as per the matriculation certificate of the petitioner, his date of birth is recorded as 03.06.1996 (this fact is admitted by the petitioner), then as per the said date of birth, petitioner was admittedly 11 years 1 month and 10 days on the date of death of his father i.e. on 13.12.2007. As per National Coal Wage Agreement a minor of 11 years 1 month and 10 days cannot be kept in live roster to get the benefit of compassionate appointment on attaining majority. The scheme does not provide for such. On this ground his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. 4. The sole purpose of the compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis which occurs due to the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family in harness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon ” reported in (2021) 16 SCC 384 in has held as: “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Parden Oraon ” reported in (2021) 16 SCC 384 in has held as: “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 5. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Others v. Anusree K.B” reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 at para 18 has held as under- “18.Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.” 6. Compassionate Appointment is an exception to the general rule as well as to the exception of constitutional scheme of appointment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Premlata” reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30 has observed at para 9 as under- “9. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.” 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and Others ” reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 at para 13 has held as under- “ 13. It is well settled that for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. In SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 378] it was remarked accordingly that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants.” 8. As per the various decisions of the apex court now it is settled law that in order to give compassionate appointment there has to be a scheme or policy governing the compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar” reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 has held as under- “8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Bank of India and Another v. Raj Kumar” reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 has held as under- “8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.” 9. It is also well settled that when there is valid scheme governing compassionate appointment the same has to be construed strictly as provided in the scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ” reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 at para 18 has held as under- “ 18. The principles relating to compassionate appointments may be summarised thus: (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well-recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well-recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. (b) Two well-recognised contingencies which are carved out as exceptions to the general rule are: (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner. Another contingency, though less recognised, is where landholders lose their entire land for a public project, the scheme provides for compassionate appointment to members of the families of project-affected persons. (Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does not provide for market value and solatium, as compensation). (c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies. (d) Compassionate appointments are permissible only in the case of a dependant member of the family of the employee concerned, that is, spouse, son or daughter and not other relatives. Such appointments should be only to posts in the lower category, that is, Classes III and IV posts and the crises cannot be permitted to be converted into a boon by seeking employment in Class I or II posts. 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of " Central Bank of India v. Nitin ” reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1873 at para 20 has held as under- “ 20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.” 11. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.” 11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 has held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule thus the scheme should be strictly construed. The relevant paragraph is quoted below;- “15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.” 12. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there cannot be any deviation from the scheme of compassionate appointment. A person who is seeking compassionate appointment must strictly fall within the four corners of the scheme, otherwise compassionate appointment cannot be granted as admittedly provision of Article 14 and 16 is not applied in this type of appointment. 13. In this case admittedly when the scheme does not provide for keeping the petitioner who is below 12 years, in the live roster, considering his age at the time of death of his father, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. 14. 13. In this case admittedly when the scheme does not provide for keeping the petitioner who is below 12 years, in the live roster, considering his age at the time of death of his father, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. 14. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as I find no illegality in the same. 15. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that there is provision of grant of monetary compensation to widow of the deceased in lieu of the compassionate appointment. In this case since the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of compassionate appointment, the widow of the deceased is entitled for monetary compensation, though no prayer has been made but considering the beneficial aspect and there is a provision for grant of monetary compensation, I direct the respondents to consider payment of monetary compensation to the widow of the deceased within the period of three months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The prayer of the petitioner is moulded accordingly. 16. This writ petition is thus disposed of.