Hon’ble Dr. Devendra kumar Arora, J.—Heard Mr Jitendra Singh, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-Bank.

2. Petitioner’s father, namely, Om Ratan, who was a Class IV employee in Union Bank of India, Kanpur, died in harness on 14.2.1997 during service. Petitioner, who is the eldest son moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds alongwith No Objection Certificate of his mother and younger brother. When no action was taken by the authorities of the Bank for quite long time on the said application, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 23.9.2002 directed the opposite parties to scrutinize the petitioner’s representation for his appointment under Dying-in Harness Rules and decide the same by virtue of a reasoned order in accordance with the Rules.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 23.9.2002, the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was considered by the General Manager (Personnel), who rejected the same vide order dated 17.10.2002.

5. Against the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the aforesaid order dated 17.10.2002 on the ground that the same had been rejected in an arbitrary manner by saying that the opposite parties have paid a sum of Rs. 1,11,023/- as terminal benefits and the family of the petitioner would be receiving Rs. 3,301/- per month towards family pension.

6. It has also been contended that the General Manager (Personnel)/opposite party No. 4 had adopted a discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner as one Sri Mukesh Kumar, son of late Govind, was given appointment on compassionate ground even though his family received terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- approximately.

7. Lastly, it has been contended that the opposite parties manifestly and erroneously ignored the fact that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members have any source of income except the family pension.

8. To strengthen his aforesaid assertion, reliance has been placed on Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation; 2005 SCC (L&S) 590, Ram Pyarey v. State Bank of India; 2001(2) UPLBEC 1575, Dhiraj Kumar Dixit v. G.M. (Personnel) UCO Bank; 2003(1) UPLBEC 20, State Bank of India v. Ram Pyarey; 2001(2)UPLBEC 1597 and Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, 2015(33) LCD 2058.

9. While justifying the impugned order rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, it has been urged by Sri M.Altaf Mansoor that the appointment on compassionate is given in pursuance of a non-statutory scheme formulated by the respondent-Bank, keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. As per the scheme, the compassionate appointment is to be offered by the Bank only in cases where the Bank is satisfied with the financial condition of the family is such that but for the provision of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis.

10. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, on examination, it was found that the family of Late Shri Om Ratan Mahaveer was receiving Rs. 3,301/- per month as family pension and had already received terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 1,03,023/- considering the liabilities as nil as informed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the bank has rightly declined to grant appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.

11. As regards to giving appointment to one Mukesh Kumar son of Late Sri Govind Kumar, it has been submitted that deceased Mukesh Kumar was not a pension optee. The net terminal benefits received by the family of late Sri Govind Kumar were only Rs. 1,84,370/- only which if invested @ 10 % per annum would have fetched them only Rs. 1,536/- as monthly income which the Bank considered as insufficient to tide