JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. The intra court appeal has been preferred for assailing the validity and correctness of judgment dated 16.05.2018 passed by learned Single Bench whereby the appellants-respondents (Punjab National Bank) were directed to provide compassionate appointment to the respondent on a suitable post, as per his eligibility.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shri Sohan Lal, father of the respondent while holding the post of Head Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Branch-Meera Chowk, Sriganganagar passed away on 21.05.2015 succumbing to prolonged illness. The respondent after the sad demise of his father submitted an application dated 02.07.2015 seeking appointment in the appellant-bank on compassionate grounds. The appellants-bank rejected the application vide order dated 20.02.2016 on the ground that respondent family’s financial position did not portray any indigent circumstances warranting employment on compassionate grounds.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2016, the respondent filed a writ petition before learned Single Bench with a prayer to provide him compassionate appointment on a suitable post as per “Scheme for Compassionate Appointment to a dependent family member of a deceased employee/employee retired on medical grounds-2014” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme of 2014’) in force. The appellant-bank, by way of filing reply averred that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship ensued due to the death of the sole bread earner in the family. Death of an employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate appointment as of right. Under the provisions of the Scheme of 2014, it is incumbent upon the appellant-bank to make objective assessment of the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee. While objectively assessing the application of the respondent, it was noticed that elder son of the deceased employee is employed in TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) with an annual income of Rs.6.47 lakhs. The family had received terminal dues to the extent of Rs.16.42 lakhs with no financial liability. Apart from this, family owned two houses and was in receipt of family pension to the tune of Rs.15,993 per month. The deceased employee was due to retire in next 1½ years of his death.

4. The learned Single Bench, vide judgment dated 16.05.2018 allowed the writ petition observing that compassionate appointment cannot be denied only by considering the family assets, retiral benefits and private job of one of the deceased’s son. The learned Single Bench quashed the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 and directed the appellant-bank to provide respondent compassionate appointment on a suitable post as per his own eligibility. The said order is assailed in this intra court appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank contended that the compassionate appointment in the appellant-bank is governed by the Scheme of 2014 introduced w.e.f 25.09.2014. The object of the Scheme of 2014 is to enable to family of a deceased employee/ employee retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years, to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The Scheme of 2014 makes it imperative to take into account financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, the size of the family etc. while considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The clause 20 (III) of the Scheme of 2014 reads as under:

“An application for compassionate appointment shall, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family