JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By the impugned order dated 22.04.2025, the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds on Class IV post has been rejected. 3. The impugned order dated 22.04.2025 finds that the resolution of the Board and the office memorandum of 16.07.2024 bars compassionate appointments on Class IV posts, and confines such appointments to Class III posts only. As per the aforesaid circular/OM dated 16.07.2024 the said policy of barring appointments on Class IV posts shall be applicable to the pending applications as well. The impugned order records that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted prior to the aforesaid office memorandum dated 16.07.2024. However, since no administrative approval for appointment of the petitioner was forthcoming, her case shall be covered by the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024. On this footing the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on a Class IV post. The petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment was accordingly declined by the impugned order. 4. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 22.10.2023. The petitioner made an application for grant of appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate ground in February, 2024. The office memorandum on the footing barring appointments on Class IV posts came into existence on 16.07.2024. The petitioner is only qualified for appointment on a Class IV post and does not possess educational qualifications for appointment on a Class III post. 5. The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the said office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 pertaining to appointments on compassionate grounds shall apply prospectively or will operate retrospectively. 6. The issue regarding prospective or retrospective application of schemes for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. V. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa in Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021. After noticing the apparent divergence of views on the issue, the Supreme Court in Bheemesh(supra) held as under: "16. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. V. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa in Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021. After noticing the apparent divergence of views on the issue, the Supreme Court in Bheemesh(supra) held as under: "16. It was only after the aforesaid reference to a larger Bench that this Court decided at least four cases, respectively in (i) Indian Bank vs. Promila; (ii) N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka; (iii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit Shrivas; and (iv) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi. Out of these four decisions, N.C. Santosh (supra) was by a three member Bench, which actually took note of the reference pending before the larger Bench. 17. Keeping the above in mind, if we critically analyse the way in which this Court has proceeded to interpret the applicability of a new or modified Scheme that comes into force after the death of the employee, we may notice an interesting feature. In cases where the benefit under the existing Scheme was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, this Court directed the application of the new Scheme. But in cases where the benefits under an existing Scheme were enlarged by a modified Scheme after the death of the employee, this Court applied only the Scheme that was in force on the date of death of the employee. This is fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law. 18. If compassionate appointment is one of the conditions of service and is made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of scrutiny whatsoever, the same would be treated as a vested right in law. But it is not so. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. This is why some of the decisions which we have tabulated above appear to have interpreted the applicability of revised Schemes differently, leading to conflict of opinion. Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. This is why some of the decisions which we have tabulated above appear to have interpreted the applicability of revised Schemes differently, leading to conflict of opinion. Though there is a conflict as to whether the Scheme in force on the date of death of the employee would apply or the Scheme in force on the date of consideration of the application of appointment on compassionate grounds would apply, there is certainly no conflict about the underlying concern reflected in the above decisions. Wherever the modified Schemes diluted the existing benefits, this Court applied those benefits, but wherever the modified Scheme granted larger benefits, the old Scheme was made applicable. 19. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change. The next date namely the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 Government servants die in harness on January 01, 2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased Government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29.05.2020 and 02.06.2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on June 01, 2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before June 1, 2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after June 01, 2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before June 1, 2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after June 01, 2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 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. 20. Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 8.12.2010 and the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft notification on 20.06.2012. The final notification was issued on 11.07.2012. Merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to the case of compassionate appointments, as the amendment in Akkamahadevamma came as a result of the existing rule being declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." 7. The modified scheme of compassionate appointment introduced by the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 works to the detriment of the petitioner as it restricts compassionate appointments to Class III posts only. Class III posts obviously require a higher level of educational qualifications. The modified scheme of compassionate appointment introduced by the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 works to the detriment of the petitioner as it restricts compassionate appointments to Class III posts only. Class III posts obviously require a higher level of educational qualifications. Persons like the petitioner at the bottom of the social heap often live at the intersection of disabilities like acute poverty and total illiteracy. Often the said class of persons are only eligible for appointment on Class IV posts. Further these classes of citizenry are simply unable to acquire higher qualifications for Class III posts due to their socioeconomic marginalization. By barring compassionate ground appointment on Class IV posts the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 effectively precludes the said marginalized class of citizens to which the petitioner belongs from the benefits of appointments on compassionate grounds. 8. Appointments on compassionate grounds are a welfare measure mooted by model employers primarily for the benefit of the employees. The said beneficent schemes particularly secure families of the employees on lower category posts who come from marginalized segments of the society. Compassionate ground appointments protect the said families already reeling under the weight of social inequities from the wages of financial destitution and uncertain future after the death of the earning member. The pre 16.07.2024 compassionate ground appointment scheme permitted appointment on Class IV posts. Consequently the dependents of deceased employees belonging to said marginalized classes could freely access the welfare measures contemplated in the earlier scheme for compassionate appointment. 9. Under the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 even if additional time is given to acquire higher qualifications for appointment to Class III posts, the same will be an exercise in futility. The low educational levels of the petitioner and utter financial destitution render acquisition of higher qualifications in any reasonable time virtually impossible. The direction in the impugned order permitting the petitioner to acquire higher qualifications for Class III appointment is redundant being impossible to achieve, and seeks to cloak the actual denial of the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner is only eligible for appointment on a Class IV post. 10. The direction in the impugned order permitting the petitioner to acquire higher qualifications for Class III appointment is redundant being impossible to achieve, and seeks to cloak the actual denial of the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner is only eligible for appointment on a Class IV post. 10. The regime of compassionate ground appointments in the respondent Corporation existing prior to the office memorandum/circular dated 16.07.2024 which permitted appointment on Class IV posts on compassionate grounds was more beneficial to the petitioner who belongs to the marginalized section of the society and is weighed down by other disabilities like lack of literacy and extreme poverty. 11. In light of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Bheemesh @ Bheemappa(supra), the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 shall apply prospectively and only to applications for grant of compassionate appointments which were filed after 16.07.2024. The case of the petitioner shall be covered by the earlier provisions for grant of compassionate ground appointments which permitted appointment on Class IV posts. The office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 shall not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. 12. There is another facet to the matter. The compassionate ground appointments are a welfare measure intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to immediately tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the earning member. 13. The object sought to be achieved by granting compassionate appointments was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 as follows: "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. 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. 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." 14. Class IV appointments made on compassionate grounds satisfy the aforesaid tests laid down in Ajithkumar G.K.(supra) more creditably than appointments on higher posts. 15. The authorities below misdirected themselves in law by applying the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 to the case of the petitioner even though she is liable to be considered under the previous scheme for appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate grounds. 16. The impugned order dated 22.04.2025 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 17. The petitioner is held entitled to be considered for appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground. 18. Matter is remitted to the respondents to process the appointment of the petitioner within a period of three months and pass appropriate orders consistent with the observations made in this judgement. 19. The writ petition is allowed.