Judgment :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ)No.798 of 2009 upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.7869 of 2008 by which the respondent had been directed to be appointed under a scheme for compassionate appointment.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. Father of the respondent who was working as a Class III employee with the appellant Bank died on 19.4.2006 while in harness. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 12.5.2006. B. During the pendency of the application filed by the respondent, a new scheme dated 12.6.2006 came into force with effect from 6.10.2006. Clause 14 thereof provides that all applications pending on the date of commencement of the scheme shall be considered for grant of ex-gratia payment to the family instead of compassionate appointment.

C. As the appointment on compassionate ground was denied to the respondent, he preferred the writ petition before the High Court and the learned Single Judge took the view that as the cause of action had arisen prior to the commencement of the new scheme, therefore, the case was to be considered as per the then existing scheme i.e. the 1983 Scheme which provided for compassionate appointment and not for grant of ex-gratia payment. The Court directed the appellant not only to consider the case of appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds but rather directed the appellant to appoint him.

D. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order by filing the Special Appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 concurring with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing 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. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

6. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court has considered the nature of the right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court observed as under:– “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased.…. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.…. The only ground which can justify compassionate employme