N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint her on compassionate grounds by giving the following reasons to grant such a relief: ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the widow of S. Ramaprasad who was working as a Deputy Regional Manager of the respondent-Organisation. He was appointed on 28-2-1991 and his appointment was confirmed on 27-2-1992. While he was in service, he met with an accident and died on 31-12-1992 at manipal Hospital at Bangalore leaving behind the petitioner and a son aged about 13 years. During his life-time, he was provided with a residential accommodation by the respondents. The petitioner and her son are still staying therein. The petitioner is a Science graduate. As Ramaprasad who was the only bread-earner in the family died while he was in service, the petitioner thought fit to seek employment on compassionate grounds, so that herself and her child can manage to live. Accordingly, she gave a representation to the respondents requesting them to appoint her on any suitable job on compassionate grounds. Her case was recommended by the regional Manager in his letter dated 18-1-1993 to the Executive director of the Respondent-Organisation at New Delhi. But, to her surprise her request was turned down by the order dated 2-4-1993 on the ground that no suitable post was available. Subsequently, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises by the end of 30-6-1993 by the letter dated 22-6-1993. ( 3 ) IT is now contended by Smt. Bhuvana Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents are not justified in turning down the petitioner's request to appoint her on compassionate grounds. Where her case was recommended by the Regional Manager that too when there was vacancy in the regional Office and she is duly qualified, the stand taken by the respondents is quite evasive. The fact that her husband ramaprasad died while he was in service leaving behind the petitioner and her son was not disputed and therefore the respondents should have appointed the petitioner on compassionate grounds on any suitable post. The fact that her husband ramaprasad died while he was in service leaving behind the petitioner and her son was not disputed and therefore the respondents should have appointed the petitioner on compassionate grounds on any suitable post. Further, according to the learned counsel, for the petitioner, the notice at annexure-B calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises is again quite incorrect and it shows that the respondents are bent upon throwing out her without considering her case for appointment on humanitarian ground. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v Union of India and Others, wherein it is held as follows:"we consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. "thus contending, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. ( 4 ) THE respondents filed detailed Statement of Objections and additional Statement of Objections denying the claim of the petitioner. Sri Shylendra Kumar, learned Central Government standing Counsel, submitted that there is no merit in the case pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, appointment on compassionate ground is required to be made only when the dependents lost their bread-earner and have no means of livelihood. Whereas, in the instant case the petitioner is well-placed in society. The petitioner received the following amounts on account of her husband Ramaprasad: