Ravi Ranjan, J.

1. Letters patent appeal is admitted.

2. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra waives service for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (original petitioners).

3. Keeping in view the controversy that has been raised in the appeal, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be heard and disposed of at this stage itself.

4. We proceed accordingly.

5. Brajendra Tiwary was an employee in the State Bank of India (for short, the Bank). He died on 24thDecember, 2002. He is survived by his wife and son, who are presently respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (for short, the petitioners). The petitioners made an application for appointment of petitioner No. 2 (son) in the Bank on compassionate ground. In the application, it was stated that after the death of the employee, the family members have been put in condition of penury.

6. That at the time of death of Brajendra Tiwary, the Bank had a Scheme of appointment on compassionate ground is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Bank had superseded its Scheme of appointment on compassionate ground by Page 2988 the Scheme of Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground with effect from 4thAugust, 2005.

7. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 2 was called for interview by the competent authority on 30th August, 2005 for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. He was asked to come along with the original documents in support of his educational qualification. However, the interview did not take place. Rather, the petitioner No. 2 was advised by the Bank to submit his claim under the Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. The petitioner No. 2 did not lodge the claim under the new Scheme and rather approached this Court by filing the writ petition being CWJC. No. 10249 of 2006. In the writ petition, the petitioners prayed that the Bank may be directed to appoint the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground as per the then existing Scheme which was prevalent at the time of death of the employee.

8. The writ petition was contested by the Bank and a counter affidavit was filed on 15th April, 2008. Inter alia, the case was set up by them that the new Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground effective from 4th August, 2005, the claim of the petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground can not be entertained or considered. The Bank stated that the case of the petitioners shall be considered in accord with the new Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount provided he fulfills all the requisite conditions.

9. The single judge heard the counsel for the parties and by his order dated 19th May, 2008 directed the Bank to consider the case of petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment as on the date of death of the deceased employee under the policy as then existing and take a final decision in respect thereof within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the order of this Court.

10. It needs no elaboration that an appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the ordinary mode of recruitment. Such appointment is not and cannot be claimed as a matter of right; rather it is always governed by some rule or policy that may have been framed by the employer for that purpose. The State Bank of India had the policy of appointment on compassionate ground which, admittedly, continued for the period 1979 until 3rd August, 2005. Thus, at the time of death of deceased employee on 24th December, 2002, the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground in the Bank was, admittedly, existing. However, the question that falls for our determination is: whether in the light of the new Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground which came into force on 4th August, 2005, the petitioners could insist for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate gr