Deepak Maheshwari, J.

1. This Civil Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred to challenge the judgment dated 30.5.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6051/2006.

2. Succinctly, the facts are that the petitioner respondent Devi Kishan filed a petition for writ with a prayer to quash and set aside the order impugned dated 25.4.2006 whereby the appellant United Commercial Bank rejected his application for giving him appointment on compassionate ground with all other notional benefits. His father Shri Bhikha Ram Harijan, who was working on the post of Class-IV employee (Sweeper) in United Commercial Bank, Branch Office Gotan, expired on 27.10.1999 during his service tenure leaving behind his widow Smt. Shanti Devi, daughters and the only son Devi Kishan. Smt. Shanti Devi submitted an application on 27.12.1999 for appointing Devi Kishan on the compassionate ground in place of his father late Bhikha Ram. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 25.4.2006 on the ground that monthly income of the family is higher than 60% of the gross salary of the deceased employee. It was also mentioned that the said application has been examined in terms of the provisions of scheme of the Bank circulated vide Circular No. CHO/PMG/19/99 dated 21.09.1999 but the case is not covered under the parameters of the above referred scheme. A calculation sheet has also been annexed thereto showing the monthly income of the family as Rs.1487.13 as against the last pay drawn gross salary of the deceased employee which was Rs.1458.48.

3. Learned Single Judge decided the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-respondent Devi Kishan vide order dated 30.05.2008 issuing the direction to the respondent-appellant Bank to reconsider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. On perusal of the judgment impugned, it appears that learned Single Judge has observed that deceased Bhikha Ram has left behind his widow, five daughters and a son. A petty amount of family pension of Rs.812/- per month is not sufficient for them to meet out day to day expenses. The size of the family was also required to be taken into consideration, besides the income of the family. In view of these facts, learned Single Judge has observed that the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the basic principles of law as also it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant UCO Bank has assailed the judgment passed by learned Single Judge alleging that the application of the petitioner-respondent has been objectively considered by the bank authorities on the para-meters of the scheme circulated for the purpose. As per the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India & Another v. Somvir Singh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778, it is well settled that the hardship of the dependent does not entitle him to compassionate appointment dehors the scheme or the statutory provisions, as the case may be. There is no scope for any deviation or applying any discretion in any manner by the officials of the Bank while implementing the scheme in place. The appellant Bank has objectively arrived at the conclusion while determining the financial condition of the bereaved family on the basis of the facts submitted by them in the application for appointment that the income of the family is more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased. Learned counsel has submitted that in such situation, the scheme prohibits the appointment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground.

6. He has also contended that learned Single Judge has directed the appellant Bank to reconsider the case of the petitioner while ignoring the formula for assessing the income as provided in the said scheme, which is not legally permissible. It has also been held by learned Single Judge that the formula prescribed in the