The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scheme for compassionate appointment should be based on the financial condition of the deceased employee's family and should not include non-income elements in the calculation of family income.

( 1 ) THE father of the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Cashier in the UCO Bank, chowk, Varanasi, He died in harness on 6. 2. 1997. The petitioner on 20. 5. 1997 claimed appointment on compassionate ground. His application remained pending. He filed Writ Petition no. 1765 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court on 17. 1. 2000 directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation, which was to be decided by the General Manager (Personnel), UCO bank, Calcutta. The petitioner made a fresh representation and sent it by registered post along with a copy of the order passed by this Court on 29. 1. 2000 and 1. 2. 2000. But since the representation was not decided, he sent reminders on 3. 3. 2000 and 7. 3. 2000. The General manager by his order dated 19. 4. 2000 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that total income of the family of the deceased was more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in the bank, as per the scheme of bank. The petitioner has challenged the Scheme for recruitment of Dependants of Deceased Employee on Compassionate Ground (in brief Scheme), annexure-1 to the petition and the order dated 19. 4. 2000 passed by respondent No. 1, annexure-5 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) SHRI D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that provident fund, gratuity, family pension, group insurance or insurance policy cannot be considered for determining the financial or family income of the family of the deceased nor it can furnish a ground for rejecting the appointment on compassionate ground. He further urged that the scheme made by the bank is ultra vires and arbitrary. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Mishra learned counsel appearing for respondents has urged that the head office of the bank had framed a scheme on 21. 9. 1999 for recruitment of dependants of deceased employees on compassionate ground and the norms for eligibility had been laid down in the scheme which provides that if the monthly income of the bereaved family is 60% or more than the gross salary, the deceased employee was drawing at the time of his death, then such cases will not be considered for compassionate appointment. As the monthly income of family of the petitioner calculated in accordance with formula given in the scheme was above 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment. He urged that the bank has framed the scheme in pursuance of the decision of Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and ors. , JT 1994 (3) SC 525, which lays down in paragraph 7 that rules or executive instructions have to be framed by the public authority for providing employment on compassionate ground. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ram Chandra Ambekar and Anr. , JT 1994 (2) SC 183 and urged that the High court while considering appointment on compassionate ground cannot go behind the scheme framed by the bank for giving appointment on compassionate ground and no mandamus can be issued directing to make appointment forbidden by scheme framed by the bank. The scheme does not suffer from any illegality nor the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

( 3 ) IN Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), the Apex Court laid down that the object of providing compassionate appointment is not to give a member of such family a post nor mere death of an employee in harness entitles his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, that too, on Class III or Class