JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record.

2. Petitioner claimed compassionate appointment but the same has been negated by Bank on the ground that she has received terminal benefits of Rs. 2,38,975/- and also getting family pension of Rs. 4,969/- per month, therefore, petitioner is not in a penurious condition so as to entitle her compassionate appointment.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that aforesaid dues could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of denial of compassionate appointment.

4. Petitioner's husband, Gajanand Tambe was permanent employee in Union Bank of India working on the post of Cashier and died in harness on 17.8.2000 on account of Cancer. Thereafter, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment vide Application dated Nil, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition which shows that deceased husband left his old mother, aged about 75 years, petitioner, the widow, one son aged about 15 years and daughter aged about 10 years. Both children were undergoing studies at the time of death of petitioner's husband. Claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been negated by Competent Authority as communicated to her by Senior Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow vide letter dated 7.3.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) which was further communicated by Manager Karmik vide letter dated 21.3.2002. Petitioner made another application on 4.5.2002 stating that she and his family is suffering great hardship having no source of income and, therefore, should be given compassionate appointment. Reminder was also given on 14.8.2002. In the meantime, family pension was sanctioned to petitioner and a sum of Rs. 1,17,484.26/- was paid towards outstanding dues of Provident Fund. Petitioner again sent a letter to Chairman and Managing Director of Bank requesting for compassionate appointment on 5.5.2004 but said request has been negated vide letter dated 15.6.2004 stating that financial condition of petitioner and her family is so indigent after the death of her husband so that compassionate appointment should be given to petitioner.

5. This writ petition has been filed challenging orders dated 15.6.2004, 7.3.2002 as communicated vide letter dated 21.3.2002 and a writ of mandamus has also been sought directing respondents to give compassionate appointment to petitioner.

6. Respondents-Bank has filed counter-affidavit appending therewith a "Scheme for Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Grounds" as circulated vide Circular dated 19.2.1997 and it is said thereunder that compassionate appointment is permissible to dependents of deceased employee dying in harness when family is in penurious condition and without any means of livelihood. Operative part of said Scheme reads as under:

"Whereas it is deemed expedient and necessary to provide for appointment of dependents of deceased employee dying in harness and leaving his/her family in penury and without any means of livelihood the Bank hereby frames the following scheme providing for and regulating the method of appointment in the clerical/subordinate cadre on compassionate grounds of widow, widowers, and children/dependents of its employees who the while in service."

7. In order to determine penurious condition etc. in para-4 of said Scheme, the aspects which are to be considered, are detailed. Para-4 of Scheme reads as under:

"Sanction for appointment

Appointments under the Scheme will be made by the Competent Authority. The object of granting compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Compassionate appointment will be offered by the Bank only in the case where the Bank is satisfied that the financial condition of family is such that but for the provision of employment, the family w