Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—The applications made by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for compassionate appointment in view of the death of their father during harness while working with Allahabad Bank have been refused acceptance with the remark that in view of the changed scheme of the Allahabad Bank, only ex gratia payment is to be provided to the dependents of an employee dying during harness. The petitioners may, therefore, submit their applications in proper form for computation of ex gratia payment. The order dated 20.2.2006 in that regard has been challenged by means of the present writ petition. It has been stated that the applications of the petitioners for compassionate appointment were processed as early as on 9.10.2004 by the Personnel Administrative Department at the Head Office of the Allahabad Bank. Compassionate appointments were approved under the said resolution. However before the resolution could be given effect to and appointment could be offered, there was change in the Scheme pertaining to compassionate appointment enforced in the Bank. On 4.2.2005 a Circular was issued by the Allahabad Bank for providing payment of ex gratia amount to the dependent of the employees dying during harness. It is stated that under the said Scheme which has become effective from 18.12.2004, the right of compassionate appointment has been taken away.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Scheme is prospective in nature and will not have the effect of taking away the right of the petitioners for compassionate appointment which was approved by the Personnel Administrative Department of the Bank in its Meeting dated 9.10.2004. He submits that since the Scheme is prospective in nature, the right accrued in favour of the petitioner under the earlier scheme will not be adversely effected. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 578 (specifically para 26), which lays down that the case of compassionate appointment has to be considered on the date the application was made. He points out that on the date of making the application and even on the date of final consideration of his application by the Personnel Administrative Department of Bank in its meeting held on 9.10.2004, the scheme providing for compassionate appointment was in force.

3. On behalf of the respondent Bank, it is stated that mere approval of the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment will not create any right in their favour and, therefore, if the Bank has decided to do away with compassionate appointment under its Scheme floated on 4.2.2005 which has come into effect on 18.12.2004, no compassionate appointment can be offered subsequent to that date irrespective of the fact whether the application for compassionate appointment was made, processed and approved prior to the enforcement of the new Scheme. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Orissa through Secretary Commerce and Transport Department, Bhubaneshwar v. Haraprasad and others, 1998 (1) ESC 74 (SC), no right is conferred merely because of empanelment of the candidate in the select list.

4. Counsel for the respondent bank clarifies in reply that since no appointment letter was issued and in between the scheme was altered, it cannot be said that his claim was finally considered under resolution dated 9.10.2004. No appointment on compassionate ground can be offered after the enforcement of scheme of 2005.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.

6. The issue with regard to the consideration of an application for compassionate appointment has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur (supra) and in paragraph 26 it has been held as follows :

“26. Finally in the fact situation of this case, Shri Sukhb