Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikeya Saran holding brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her father died on 29th June, 2004 while working in the respondent-Bank in harness. Consequent thereto, the petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment, which claim was rejected on 6th April, 2005 on account of her advanced age. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 31st May, 2005. The respondents have refused to accept the request of compassionate appointment and have alternatively offered a financial sanction of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six lacs) as ex-gratia payment described as financial relief to the family.

3. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the scheme, which was prevalent at the time of death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner is entitled for being considered for compassionate appointment and any subsequent circular issued by the Bank would not divest the petitioner of her legitimate claim of consideration. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, JT (3) SC 35. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and another v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Srivastava and another (Special Appeal No. 954 of 2009) decided on 14.7.2009. He submits that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is founded on the erroneous application of a circular and, therefore, the relief claimed for by the petitioner by quashing the orders dated 30th June, 2006 and 12th October, 2006 should be granted with a further direction to engage the petitioner on compassionate basis.

4. Sri Saran, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that it is on account of the circular dated 4th October, 2005 read with the subsequent circular dated 2nd February, 2006 that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered and she has been, under the new scheme, offered ex-gratia payment which satisfies her claim. It is submitted that in view of this subsequent circular, no claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the submissions raised, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) in paragraph 30 rules as under:

“Finally in the fact situation of this case, Sri Sukhbir Inder Singh (late), Record Assistant (Cash & Accounts) on 1.8.1999 in the Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar branch passed away. The respondent, widow of Sri Sukhbir Inder Singh applied for compassionate appointment in the appellant Bank on 5.2.2000 under the scheme which was formulated in 2005. The High Court also erred in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent applying the scheme formulated on 4.8.2005, when her application was made in 2000. A dispute arising in 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the present matter in 2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the income of the family of deceased is Rs. 5855/- only, which is less than 40% of the salary last drawn by Late Shri. Sukhbir Inder Singh, in contradiction to the 2005 scheme does not hold water.”

6. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is that the circular, which was in existence at the time of the moving of the application has to be taken into consideration. On facts, it is admitted between the parties that the application of the petitioner was moved on 31st May, 2005. This was obviously prior to the issuance of the circulars dated 4th October, 2005 and 2nd February, 2006. Apart from this, the circulars aforesaid do not in any way wipe out the effect and the rights that had accrued in favour of the petition