JUDGMENT

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WHETHER compassionate appointment of the appellant is warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved herein.

( 3 ) APPELLANT is the widow of one Yunus Dastagir Mulani. He was a peon witking in the respondent, a vocational institution. It is a public charitable trust. Appellant's husband expired on 6. 9. 1996. She filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. As no response thereto was received, she made representations.

( 4 ) SECOND Respondent, however, declined to give any appointment on compassionate ground to the appellant. She filed a writ petition before the high Court. By reason of the impugned judgment the said petition has been dismissed.

( 5 ) MR. Makarand D. Adkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the reason for depriving the appellant of the right to be appointed on compassionate ground, being payment of family pension, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It was contended that the appellant has a large family to maintain which includes her two grown up children. The family pension received by her being only Rs. 1,100/- per month, the respondent should be directed to offer appointment on compassionate ground to her even at that stage.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that immediately upon the death of the appellant's husband, the respondents supported the case of the appellant in assisting her to get the retrial benefits of her husband. However, in the year 1997, another person being Mr. Arun Uttereshwar having been appointed, it is not possible to dismiss him from service so as to accommodate the appellant.

( 7 ) APPELLANT's husband was appointed in a Class IV post. The school is an aided institution. The State, although instructed the respondent to appoint the appellant on compassionate ground, it appears, such an instruction had been issued in view of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground as contained in the Government Order dated 31st December, 2002. The said resolution, inter alia, reads as under :

"1) Regarding giving appointment on compassionate principle, the above scheme will be applicable to all teachers and employees other than teachers of private, primary, secondary and higher middle as well as training schools for teachers.

2) Rules relating to absorption of relatives of employees deceased or retired because of medical reason, are given in the enclosed annexure "a".

3) Information about application to be made for service by the concerned relatives of employees and documents to be submitted along with it will be as mentioned in annexure "b".

4) If the decision is taken prior to implementation of this scheme in respect of giving/refusing to give appointment on compassionate principle, those cases should not be taken into consideration for review. However, those employees who are deceased or those employees who are prematurely retired because of incurable illness after 1 January, 2001, in case if persons from such family have applied for appointment on compassionate principle, and if in case their application has been turned down, such relatives can submit their application again afresh in this scheme. "

7. The fact that the appellant has been receiving family pension is not in dispute. It has furthermore been averred in the counter affidavit that she has income from the immoveable properties in regard whereto, there is no denial or dispute.

( 8 ) APPOINTMENT on compassionate ground can only be granted to tide over the sudden crisis of the family of the deceased. The right to get appointment on compassionate ground would depend upon the scheme operating in the field. [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and ors. [ (1994) 4 SCC 138]; and National Institute of Technology and Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Singh [2007 (2) SCALE 525]

( 9 ) THE High Court in its judgment had noticed that the scheme which