JUDGMENT : Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 assails the judgment dated 28.03.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.12206/2004, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Facts 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first appellant is the mother of the second appellant. The husband of the first appellant, C.K. Babu, while working as a sub staff in the service of the Bank, died in- harness on 09.03.2001. The first appellant did not possess the formal educational qualifications required for employment under the Employment Assistance Scheme. Therefore, she submitted an application requesting that employment be provided to the second appellant, who possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment as a Clerk. The deceased, C.K. Babu, was the sole breadwinner of the family and owned only one asset, i.e., land measuring 5 cents with a house constructed thereon, which was built by availing a loan. At the time of his death, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 9,048/-. Following his demise, a family pension of Rs. 3,700/- per month was sanctioned, in addition to a gratuity amount of Rs. 1,55,241/-. However, after seven years, the family pension was reduced by fifty percent. Appellants’ submission 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, inasmuch as there was no fault on the part of the appellants in approaching the authorities seeking compassionate appointment. Admittedly, the deceased employee passed away in the year 2001, and a proper application was submitted in the same year itself. 3.1 Thereafter, after a lapse of approximately three years, vide Ext.P7 dated 04.03.2004, the respondents informed the appellants that the request for compassionate appointment of her son could not be acceded to, in view of the directives received from the Board in this regard. However, the appellants were offered a lump sum financial relief of Rs. 2 lakhs, subject to the condition that no further representations on the matter would be entertained. Subsequently, the appellants approached this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that more than one and a half decades had elapsed since the cause of action arose, and therefore, no relief could be granted at that stage. 2 lakhs, subject to the condition that no further representations on the matter would be entertained. Subsequently, the appellants approached this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that more than one and a half decades had elapsed since the cause of action arose, and therefore, no relief could be granted at that stage. 3.2 The learned counsel further submitted that, as per Ext.P2 Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, in cases where an employee passes away before attaining the age of 50 years, the family shall be given an option to choose between compassionate appointment and lump sum financial relief, in accordance with Clause II of the Scheme Respondent’s submission 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank contended that the appellants were receiving family pension, which coupled with interest income of the benefits received by the appellants after the deductions made towards loans and other dues, would be above the last drawn pay of the deceased employee. Further it is submitted that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.T. Latheesh , [ (2006) 7 SCC 350 ] 4.1 Furthermore, the learned Counsel submits that compassionate employment is not made as a matter of right to be claimed under the Scheme. The retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the request for compassionate appointment. On total consideration of the benefits received by the appellants as well as the financial assistance granted by the Bank, the request for compassionate appointment was declined by the Bank. The lumpsum financial relief was in addition to the terminal benefits and family pension already given by the Bank, which was found sufficient to take care of the family and tide over the crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner of the family. Therefore, no interference is called for. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. Discussion and Analysis 5. Heard Mr P.C. Sasidharan learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mr A.S.P. Kurup learned Standing Counsel for the Union Bank of India. 6. Therefore, no interference is called for. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. Discussion and Analysis 5. Heard Mr P.C. Sasidharan learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mr A.S.P. Kurup learned Standing Counsel for the Union Bank of India. 6. The relevant portion of the Scheme is reproduced below: “II Financial Relief In all cases of an employee dying in harness including while performing duty as mentioned in (I) above, the family of the deceased employee will be provided financial relief if eligible and if requested for within six months of the death of the employee, as follows: Eligibility: Financial relief may be extended to family of employee dying in harness only if monthly income of the family from Terminal Benefits is less than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of taxes) of deceased employee. The financial relief payable in such cases will be in the form of Lump Sum ex gratia which will earn interest income to the extent of the shortfall between 60% of the last drawn gross monthly salary (net of all taxes) of the leceased employee and the monthly income of the family from Terminal Benefits i.e. Provident Fund (including Voluntary Provident Fund), Gratuity, Leave Encashment & pension where applicable. *** *** *** Amount payable will be equal to such sum, which would yield interest income equal to the differential amount subject to ceilings enumerated in the "Note" hereinafter. However, in case monthly income of the family from Terminal Benefits is more than 60% of the last drawn salary (net of taxes) of deceased employee, the minimum Lump sum Financial Relief as laid down in the Scheme will be provided to such of the applicants. In case the widow has opted for compassionate appointment as per Clause I of the Scheme above, she will not be eligible for Lump sum Financial Relief. "Family" for the above purpose would mean and include spouse, wholly dependent children (son, including legally adopted son/unmarried daughter including legally adopted unmarried daughter). In case of unmarried employee, parents who are wholly dependent on the employee. Note: In order to have a uniform and equitable yardstick, in computing gross monthly salary/monthly income of the family, between employees who have availed of loans under various staff loan schemes (Housing Loan, Conveyance Loan etc.) and those who have not availed them, deductions/setting off towards loans/liabilities are excluded. Note: In order to have a uniform and equitable yardstick, in computing gross monthly salary/monthly income of the family, between employees who have availed of loans under various staff loan schemes (Housing Loan, Conveyance Loan etc.) and those who have not availed them, deductions/setting off towards loans/liabilities are excluded. As our bank extends facility of additional 1% interest on deposits of ex-employees and having regard to the prevailing interest rate of 6% p.a. on term deposits for three years and above, the notional rate of interest assumed is 7% p.a. (simple) i.e. 6% + 1% additional given to ex-employees, for calculating monthly income on Terminal Benefits invested and for arriving at lump sum amount of financial relict. However, the same will be payable in Lump Sum (rounded off to the nearest thousand). It will be subject to the revision in interest rate by the Bank from time to time. The Cadre wise ceiling on lump sum financial relief will be as under: Category Minimum Amount Maximum Amount Officers Rs.4 lakhs Rs.8 lakhs Clerical Rs.3 lakhs Rs.7 lakhs Sub Staff Rs.2 lakhs Rs.6 lakhs NB: In case of an employee killed while on duty by dacoits/robbers/terrorists, the dependent family also is eligible as per existing Government guidelines for a one-time monetary compensation ranging between Rs. 1.00 lac to Rs.5.00 lacs depending on the cadre of the employee. 111. In case of an employee who is seeking premature retirement due to total incapacitation for work, on account of ill-health, as certified by the Bank’s Medical Officer, the Bank may consider an ex-gratia @ 45 days’ Salary (Basic pay Special Pay stagnation increment last drawn + DA)- for each year of residual service upto the age of retirement, subject to the cadre-wise ceilings on financial relief as applicable in case of family of a deceased employee as stated above. However, the r, the same will be payable in Lump Sum (rounded off to the nearest thousand). Such cases will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. The Financial Relief shall be payable to eligible cases within 3 months of receipt of the duly completed application.” 7. From the above, it is evident that before rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment, the respondents are obligated to consider various factors, including the cadre in which the appointment is to be offered, the dependents eligible for appointment, age, minimum educational qualifications, etc. From the above, it is evident that before rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment, the respondents are obligated to consider various factors, including the cadre in which the appointment is to be offered, the dependents eligible for appointment, age, minimum educational qualifications, etc. In cases where financial relief is to be granted instead, the eligibility for such relief must also be properly ascertained. The respondents, without undertaking the aforementioned exercise, rejected the claim for compassionate appointment through a one-line order, without assigning any cogent reasons. They offered a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as financial relief, without disclosing the basis or criteria on which the said amount was determined. As per Ext.P2 itself, the cadre-wise ceiling on lump sum financial relief for sub staff employees, minimum amount is Rs.2 lakhs, whereas the maximum amount is Rs.6 lakhs. It is not known as to why only an amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been offered, which has also not been paid till date. 8. The Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. M T Latheesh , [ 2006 (7) SCC 350 ] has followed the judgment in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Hariyana , [ 1996 (2) SCC 459 ] wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows: “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 a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public 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 a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.” 9. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.” 9. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the settled legal position that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to families in distress, dismissed the writ petition. In the present case, 25 years have elapsed since the death of the employee, and it is likely that the eligible persons have since become overaged. Moreover, there may not be any vacant post available on which such an appointment could now be granted. Conclusion 10. We are of the considered opinion that the respondents should recalculate the amount of financial relief strictly in accordance with the Scheme, taking into account the various factors prevailing at the time of the employee’s death. The recalculated amount shall thereafter be paid to the first appellant without delay. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.