( 1 ) THE husband of the petitioner was employed as an Attender in the 2nd respondent-Bank. He died on 27. 1. 2004, while in service. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application with a prayer to provide her employment on compassionate grounds as well as to extend the monetary benefits, payable on account of the death of her husband. Complaining that no action has been taken thereon, the petitioner filed w. P. No. 4902 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of on 18. 3. 2004, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders. It was in this context that the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 26. 4. 2004, stating that the scheme of providing employment to the dependants of the deceased-employees on compassionate grounds was discontinued. So far as the payment of the amounts towards Gratuity etc. is concerned, it was pointed out that the husband of the petitioner had availed various loans, such as personal loan, housing loan; totalling to rs. 2,71,522/-, and that a sum of Rs. 1,09,480/- payable towards gratuity, was adjusted. The petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order.

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, admitting the factum of the death of the husband of the petitioner. It is stated that the scheme of providing employment to the dependants of the deceased-employees was discontinued. The 2nd respondent pleaded that the husband of the petitioner had availed as many as six categories of benefits in the form of loans or advances, and had given a written undertaking while in service, authorizing the 2nd respondent to adjust the salary and other benefits towards the loan amount.

( 3 ) SRI Ch. Janardhan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the scheme of providing employment to the dependants of the deceased-employees was in vogue, when the husband of the petitioner was in service, and even if it was discontinued with effect from 8. 9. 2003, the discontinuance would be applicable to the employees appointed thereafter. He further contends that gratuity, is a statutory benefit conferred upon an employee, in return to the service rendered by him, and the occasion to pay the same would arise only at a time when the employment comes to an end. He contends that the so-called undertaking given by the husband of the petitioner does not cover the gratuity and it would cover, at the best, the salary. The learned Counsel further points out that when the gratuity is kept out of the purview of attachment, under Section 60 C. P. C. as well as the relevant provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act ), it was not at all open to the 2nd respondent, to adjust it towards any liability.

( 4 ) SRI T. Amarnath Goud, the learned standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the scheme of providing employment to the dependants of the deceased-employees is not governed by any Statute, and being administrative and discretionary in nature, no individual can claim it, as matter of right, more so, when it was discontinued. He further contends that the undertaking furnished by the husband of the petitioner during his lifetime would enable the 2nd respondent to adjust all the amounts payable, after his death.

( 5 ) THE relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition is two-fold. The first is as regards the compassionate appointment and the second is about the payment of death-cum-retirement benefits. As to the first aspect, it needs to be seen that the scheme of providing employment to the dependants of the deceased-employees, who died while in service, was formulated with an object of rescuing the family, which is otherwise in distress. Slowly, it has assumed such a shape that the vacancies in various organizations are being filled up with the dependants of deceased or medically invalidated employees alone, and a semblance of succession had emerged. It was in this context that various organizations have given a re-thinking. While in so