ORDER : 1. Petitioner, who claims to be the daughter of Late Boda Sudhakar, Employee No. 413352, Ex-Senior Manager, Hyderabad, M.J. Road Currency Chest, died in harness on 15.04.2017, seeks appointment on compassionate grounds in clerical cadre. According to her, rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent - Chief Manager (HR), Syndicate Bank, Manipal dated 23.03.2018 has no application to her claim. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner Ms. Jyotshna Devi appearing on behalf of Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel on record, submits that on the death of her father on 15.04.2017, petitioner made Application for compassionate appointment which was rejected vide order dated 23.03.2018 on the ground that as per Circular No. 062/2018/BC, dated 31.01.2018, appointment on compassionate grounds may be provided to the dependent family of the employee, who dies in service, subject to satisfying the condition that family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and where the total income of the family from all sources is below Rs.35,000/- per month; since monthly notional interest income on terminal benefits and investment proceeds is Rs.19,421/- and monthly pension from the bank of the deceased is Rs.23,912/- ,totalling Rs.43,333/-, which exceeds ceiling limit of Rs.35,000/-, she is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground / lump sum ex gratia amount. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa, Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021 to submit that interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 wherein also it has been held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. 3. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 wherein also it has been held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. 3. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank Sri A. Krishnam Raju, relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 , SBI vs. Rajkumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 , N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 , State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 , State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600 , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 contends that there can be no immediate or automatic appointment on compassionate grounds merely upon Application; several factors, including eligibility and financial condition, are to be considered up to the date of assessment. It is further contended that the bank has right to modify or abolish the compassionate appointment scheme at any time, subject to its policies, financial constraints, and post availability, hence, petitioner has no vested right to compassionate appointment, as pending Applications are processed according to the latest applicable Scheme. 4. In the light of the pleadings, arguments and the legal position, the point that arises for consideration is whether the case of petitioner can be considered for compassionate appointment vis-à-vis the Scheme which was in vogue at the time when her father died or subsequent to that. 5. To decide the said issue, it is necessary to refer the Circular dated 08.04.2015 (old scheme) on which petitioner places reliance to seek appointment. It states the eligibility criteria as the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution besides acquiring educational qualification and age limit, etcetera, stated therein. Admittedly, petitioner has requisite qualification and age bracket. It states the eligibility criteria as the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution besides acquiring educational qualification and age limit, etcetera, stated therein. Admittedly, petitioner has requisite qualification and age bracket. On the other hand, Circular dated 31.01.2018 based on which respondent bank rejected the claim of petitioner stipulates, in addition to the conditions in old scheme, that total income of family from all sources should be below Rs.35,000/- per month; revised scheme shall come into force with retrospective effect from 05.08.2014 and the cases of employees who died while in service on or after the same date would be dealt with in accordance with the revised scheme. 6. The law on this point is very clear from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa’s case (referred to supra). In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the dicta laid down in earlier judgments in Jaspal Kaur’s case, Raj Kumar’s case, Chakrawarti Singh’s case, M. Mahesh Kumar’s case, Promila’s case, N.C. Santosh’s case (referred to supra), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi and held that ‘interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate land fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor’. In view of the said principle, undoubtedly, the Scheme prevalent at the time of death of employee is to be taken as factor to determine the eligibility of petitioner. 7. Learned Standing Counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 745 and State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 SCC Online SC 219 but the facts and circumstances in those cases are not akin to the case on hand, hence, they need not be looked into. 8. Further, it is to be seen that respondent bank has denied the claim of petitioner as the monthly income exceeded Rs.35,000/-, on hypothetical assumptive calculation that she would be getting notional interest on terminal benefits. Admittedly, the said stipulation was not there in the old scheme. 8. Further, it is to be seen that respondent bank has denied the claim of petitioner as the monthly income exceeded Rs.35,000/-, on hypothetical assumptive calculation that she would be getting notional interest on terminal benefits. Admittedly, the said stipulation was not there in the old scheme. In that regard, petitioner in her affidavit averred that her deceased father is survived by unmarried daughter (petitioner), wife, unmarried brother and aged mother at that time and they have to meet the expenses for their education, medicines, marriage, etcetera from those terminal benefits. Hence, it cannot be said that they would be getting fixed interest on the terminal benefits forever. Apart from that, though bank in their counter stated that petitioner has been enjoying income on other sources i.e. immovable assets, they did not file a piece of paper in support thereof. Therefore, it is unjust to say that petitioner’s case does not fit in the ceiling fixed by the new Scheme. 9. In the light of the discussion supra, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that Writ Petition deserves to be allowed as petitioner’s case is entitled to be considered as per Circular dated 08.04.2015. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs. 11. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.