H. S. Bedi, J. - (1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal of the respondent-bank was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant dismissed. The facts of the case are that one Mrs. Parveen Mittal who was an employee of the respondent-Bank, died during the course of her employment. The plaintiff-appellant a practising Advocate and being a sister of the deceased applied for employment in the Bank on compassionate grounds and when the same was denied to her, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent-bank seeking a direction that she be provided employment. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the bank on the ground that as per the scheme Ex. D2, the employment of a dependent of a deceased female employee was not envisaged and further that as the appellant was herself a practising Advocate, she could not be said to have been dependent on her sister Mrs. Parveen Mittal. The assertion of the appellant in the plaint that she along with her mother were the legal heirs of the deceased as they had been paid the gratuity and other benefits due to her which entitled her to employment on this additional ground as well was denied by the bank in the written statement that this was a matter of internal arrangement and if the husband of the deceased had relinquished his rights, that could not bind the bank in any manner. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction ? OPP (2) Whether the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable ? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff has no legal rights to institute the suit ? OPD (4) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? OPD (5) Whether the suit in question is not of a Civil nature ? What is the resultant effect ? OPD (6) Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action ? OPD (7) Whether the plaintiff has no legal right to seek employment in the defendants bank ? OPD (8) Relief." The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and under issue No. 8, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as prayed. The matter was, thereafter taken in appeal before the Additional District Judge, who after examining the scheme Ex. D2 and the reasons recorded by the trial Court held that the plaintiff appellant did not fall within the four corners of the scheme as she was not a dependent as defined in paragraph 2(g) thereof and further that paragraph 3 visualised appointment on compassionate grounds only of heirs or close relatives of a deceased male employee. The appeal was, accordingly allowed. Hence, this second appeal before this Court. This case came up for motion hearing on September 13, 1991 and on the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the scheme Ex.D2 violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as a benefit had been conferred only on the words of deceased male employees ignoring the claim of the wards of deceased female employees, notice of motion was issued and thereafter, the case was admitted on December 20, 1991. It has been conceded before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the scheme Ex. D2 as framed, the sister of a deceased employee would not be entitled to employment on compassionate grounds but he has reiterated the arguments raised at the time of motion hearing that the scheme Ex. D2 itself violated, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. I have considered the matter in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in this appeal. It is to be borne in mind that employment on compassionate ground is a concession conferred on the heirs of a deceased employee ignoring merit and a person who does not fulfil the requirement for employment under the scheme has no right to claim employment thereunder. It will be seen further from the definition of the word "dependent" given in para 2(g) of the Scheme that the first part thereof refers to a widow, a son, a daughter, a brother, sister of the deceased employee meaning thereby that the deceased must be a male employee. Likewise the second part of definition also pre-supposes that the deceased employee would be a male member and nomination as envisaged thereunder is to be made by the widow. Para (3) of the scheme again pre-supposes that employment will be made on compassionate grounds from the dependents of a deceased employee only if the employee is a male. While dealing with a case for employment on compassionate ground, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 734 of 1992 that though a particular individual may be qualified for employment on compassionate grounds, yet even he cannot claim as a matter of right that he be given any particular employment. In the present case the appellant admittedly does not fulfil the requirements of the scheme so as to enable her to claim the post that she is seeking. Mr. Yogesh Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant has however, relied on C. L. Davar v. Shri Amar Nath Kapur, 1963 P.L.R. 644 that the word 'dependent' must be given an extended meaning. This was a case under the Delhi Rent Control Act. I have considered this argument as well and find no merit in the same. Once the word "dependent" has been defined in the scheme Ex. D2, and only such persons are entitled to employment as are given in paragraph 3 thereof, the question of interpreting the word "dependent" in the light of the provisions of the Delhi Act would not arise. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;