JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The writ petitioner is the son of Late Satya Narayan Gope who had been the Headmaster of Methela Junior High School. The father of the writ petitioner expired on 16.7.84. On 10.8.84, the mother of the writ petitioner made an application to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Birbhum, through the Secretary, Methela Junior High School, intimating that the only son of Late Satya Narayan Gope, Bishnupada Gape the writ petitioner, was at that material time 14 years old and a student of Class VIII. Under such circumstances, the mother of the writ petitioner prayed that the name of the writ petitioner may he enlisted on his attaining 18 years of age. Another representation dated 19.10.90 was also made to the D. I. of Schools (S.E), Birbhum, for empanelment of his name for employment on compassionate ground under commonly known as 'Dying-in-Harness Rule'. 2. In (1) Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 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". 3. The above quoted observation was relied upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2) Phoolwati v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 73 . 4. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is 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. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever be the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 5. That apart, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of 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. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (3) Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 (4) SCC 138 . 6. At this stage it may be useful to refer to another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (4) L. I. C. of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambakar, AIR 1994 SC 2148 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :–– "Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. No doubt Shakespeare said in Merchant of Venice : "The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth, as the gentle rain from the heaven upon the place beneath it is twice blessed; it blessth him that gives, and him that takes". 7. These words will not apply to all situations. Yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered "law is the embodiment of all wisdom". It droppeth, as the gentle rain from the heaven upon the place beneath it is twice blessed; it blessth him that gives, and him that takes". 7. These words will not apply to all situations. Yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered "law is the embodiment of all wisdom". Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The Courts are to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 8. If the above principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court are not followed then in the words of portia "T will be recorded for a precedent, and many an error by the same example will rush into the State". In this connection reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (5) I. E. Newspaper (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515 (551); Para-97. 9. From the applications of the mother or the writ petitioner referred to hereinabove, the prayer made itself show that neither there was urgent need for employment of the writ petitioner under 'Dying-in-Harness Rule' nor the family was facing any financial crisis. Had there been such urgency or financial crisis the writ petitioner would have asked for immediate employment without waiting for long four years. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in this case and, hence, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.