1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition.

2. The petitioners in the writ petition prayed for grant of following relief,

"It is. therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record and the writ petition may kindly be allowed and;

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direction be issued to the respondent to give suitable appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds and also direct to make all due payments to late Shri Shyam Babu Sain;

(ii) any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of petitioners."

3. The facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner No. 1 died in harness on 25th of January, 2001. He was Class IV employee working with the respondent No. 1, Aiwar Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (for short, the respondent Bank'). He left behind him following heirs:

1. Sushila (the widow)

2. Lalit Kumar (son)

3. Chetan Kumar (son)

4. Kumari Geetanjali (Daughter)

5. Manish Kumar (son)

4. After death of her husband, the petitioner No. 1 sent due information to the respondent Bank and requested therein either to appoint her or to appoint her son, the petitioner No. 2, on compassionate ground, as there is no one to look after the family affairs. She made numerous representations to the respondent Bank but no veil and ultimately on 12th of May, 2001 a letter was sent by the respondent Bank informing that the application of the petitioners has been kept in waiting list at serial No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 met with the District Collector and explained her grievance on 4th of September, 2001. The District Collector, Alwar sent a letter to the Bank in this regard but nothing has been done, thus she filed this writ petition.

5. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent Bank. In the reply to the writ petition the preliminary objection has been raised. It is difficult to appreciate what to say to accept this approach of the respondent Bank which may be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India to make an attempt to non suit the petitioner No. 1, a widow of deceased employee, in the matter of compassionate appointment.

6. In the matter of compassionate appointment where the widow of deceased prays therefor, the same, in my opinion, may be accepted without any hesitation or whisper whatsoever. Acceptance thereof and giving appointment to the widow of the deceased, in my opinion, is not only fair and reasonable but, strictly speaking, a genuine compassionate appointment.

7. I have my own reservations that the compassionate appointments being made, may not be hundred per cent genuine and justified.

8. Be that as it may be, the another ground given for not accepting the prayer of the petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment has no factual and legal foundation of stand. Her application was considered and placed at serial No. 2 in the waiting list on the ground that one Chhote Lal Jogi also applied for compassionate appointment on the death of his father Makhan Lal Jogi who expired on 25.11.1991 in harness. This approach of the respondent Bank to place the application, of the dependent of an employee; who died on 25.11.1991, at serial No 1 in the waiting list, is wholly perverse, arbitrary and against the very object and purpose of the Rules providing for compassionate appointment. The application of Chhote Lal Jogi claiming compassionate appointment on the death of his father way back on 25.11.1991 otherwise also cannot be given, any due consideration at this stage. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble is Supreme Court time and again held that compassionate appointments are to be given immediately after the death of employee otherwise The very purpose and object thereof would be frustrated. Chhote Lal Jogi, the son of deceased employee Makhan Lal Jogi, who died on 25.11.1991, did not bother, care and