Judgment

Pattanaik, J. -Leave granted.

2. The West Bengal State Electricity Board has come in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 30th June 1998 in M.A.T. No. 4271 of 1997 whereunder the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the private re­spondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the said respondent, Samir Kumar Sarkar was an employee under the State Electricity Board and he died on 29th November 1996 at the age of 56 years 10 months and 15 days, which was within two years from the scheduled date of his retirement on superannuation. When the respond­ent applied for an employment on compassionate ground, the Board rejected his prayer on the ground that under the Rules in question dealing with compassionate appointments, no appointment can be given if the employee dies within two years from the scheduled date of retirement on superannuation. The respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition and the learned Single Judge, in view of the Rules, dismissed the same. The respondent went in appeal in the High Court. The Divi­sion Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that provision disentitling appointment on compassionate ground if the employees dies within two years from the date of superannuation only in respect of clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) and not in case of clauses (i) and (ii) is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. Therefore, the High Court quashed that part of the order and directed consideration of the case of respondent for compassionate appointment. It is not disputed that the death of the father of the respondent was on account of illness and it was within two years from the date of superannuation.

3. Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the concept of compassionate appointment is itself a discretionary one. There is no statutory rule governing such appoint­ments, conferring an enforceable right on the LRs. of the deceased employee. The idea to give such compassionate appointment is that the children of the employee who dies in harness may not be destitute on the road and can have a decent living. To achieve that objective, several guidelines/criteria are fixed. The reason why the embargo in question does not apply to clauses (i) and (ii) but apply to clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) is for an avowed purpose inasmuch as in clause (i) and (ii), the death having occurred due to accident arising out of and in course of employment and total disablement due to accident in course of employment whereas under clauses (iii), (iv) and (v), the death is not in any way connected with the employment and, therefore, there is a reasonable basis for the classification in question and the High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that such classification is discriminatory. In order to appreciate the conten­tion raised by Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appel­lants, the relevant office order is quoted herein below in extenso:

“The Board is pleased to make provision for consideration for employ­ment of a dependent of deceased employee in the following circum­stances and subject to condition as mentioned hereunder:-

(i) In case of death of an employee due to accident arising out of and in course of employment;

(ii) Employees rendered totally disabled due to an accident arising out of an in course of employment;

(iii) Employees dying in harness;

(iv) Employees reported missing subject to observance of formalities as prescribed by the Board;

(v) Employees declared lunatic by appropriate authority.

No employment would however, be considered in the following circum­stances :

(a) Where the death under (iii) above or the incident under (iv) or the declaration under (v) above takes place in the proceeding two years from the scheduled date of retirement on superannuation of th