ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. This appeal relates to appointment of the dependant of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds. One Fakir Mohan Nayak was employed as Peon with the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (for short "MMTC"). While thus employed he died on 21-9-1990. He had been married to Pramoda Dei, respondent herein. They were legally separated since 6-7-1985. The respondent was being paid by the deceased employee a sum of Rs 200 per month towards maintenance. The said employee had started living with another woman, Savitri Nayak, and had four children from her. Rule 18 of the MMTC (Staff Recruitment) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides as under : "18. Appointments of dependants of employees who die in harness/or disabled permanently. The Chairman/Director (P) may appoint a direct dependant of a regular employee of the Corporation who either dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service of the Corporation, to any of the posts mentioned in Appendix II of these Rules by relaxing the age and qualifications prescribed for such appointment." (pp. 31-32) 3. Savitri Nayak claiming to be the second wife of Fakir Mohan Nayak submitted an application for grant of employment as the direct dependant of the deceased employee. Since the said application was not accepted by MMTC Savitri Nayak filed a writ petition (being OJC No. 4968 of 1992) in the Orissa High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by judgment dated 29-10-1992 whereby MMTC was directed to employ Savitri Nayak in any job for which she is suitable. In pursuance of the said direction given by the High Court, MMTC, by their letter dated 12-5-1993, offered the job to Savitri Nayak. Thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal (being OJC No. 3010 of 1993) in the Orissa High Court wherein she also sought appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 18 of the Rules. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 28-2-1994. Thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal (being OJC No. 3010 of 1993) in the Orissa High Court wherein she also sought appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 18 of the Rules. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 28-2-1994. The High Court has rejected the contention urged on behalf of MMTC "We have no hesitation to hold that Rule 18 of the MMTC (Staff Recruitment) Rules is the rule providing for rehabilitation appointment and that in all cases where rehabilitation appointment becomes due because of death of an employee in harness or for his permanent disability, such appointment is to be given except where it can be refused on any germane ground such as ineligibility, incapacitation or unsuitability of the person seeking appointment. We hence do not agree with the submission of Mr Mitra that the question of giving rehabilitation appointment is the absolute discretion of the Chairman. " (p. 5) The High Court has directed MMTC to afford a rehabilitation appointment to the respondent suitable to her eligibility within two months of the receipt of the writ from the Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants, viz., the Managing Director of MMTC and the Deputy General Manager of MMTC filed this appeal. 4. Shri Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that under Rule 18 a discretion has been given to the Chairman/Director (Personnel) in the matter of appointment of a direct dependant of a regular employee of MMTC who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service of MMTC and that the High Court was not justified in issuing a writ directing the appellants to give a a rehabilitation appointment to the respondent and all that could be done was that the High Court could have directed the competent authority to consider the matter of giving rehabilitation appointment to the respondent. In support of the said submission, Shri Salve has invited our attention to the recent decision of this Court in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar wherein this Court was considering the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and it was held that the Court should not have directed appointment on compassionate grounds and it could have merely directed consideration of the claim of the dependant of the deceased employee. We find considerable merit in the said submission of Shri Salve. In our opinion, Rule 18 of the Rules confers a discretion on the Chairman/Director (Personnel) to appoint a direct dependant of a regular employee who dies in harness or is permanently disabled while in the service. It is no doubt true that this discretion is not an unfettered discretion and has to be exercised reasonably after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that rehabilitation appointment has to be given in all cases where it becomes due because of death of an employee in harness or by his permanent disability and it can be refused only in certain circumstances as indicated by the High Court. In our opinion, the discretion of the competent authority cannot be thus fettered. As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment (See : Umesit Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haana2). Ineligibility, incapacity or unsuitability of the person seeking employment are no doubt relevant considerations but they cannot be regarded as exhaustive. There may be other circumstances which may be relevant and can be taken into account by the competent authority for considering whether rehabilitation appointment should be given under Rule 18 of the Rules. 5. In the instant case MMTC had already given rehabilitation appointment to Savitri Nayak who was living with the deceased employee and had borne him four children. The respondent had been living separately and was paid a maintenance allowance of Rs 200 per month by the deceased employee. 5. In the instant case MMTC had already given rehabilitation appointment to Savitri Nayak who was living with the deceased employee and had borne him four children. The respondent had been living separately and was paid a maintenance allowance of Rs 200 per month by the deceased employee. In these circumstances we are unable to uphold the direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment for giving rehabilitation appointment to the respondent but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the appellants to make an ex gratia payment of a sum of Rs 25,000 to the respondent which would enable her to maintain herself after the death of her husband which has resulted in the denial of the maintenance allowance which she was getting from her husband. This payment shall be in addition to the sum of Rs 3000 which has a been deposited by the appellants towards costs under the directions given by this Court in the order dated 9-9-1994. In order to ensure that the corpus remains intact to provide a regular income it is further directed that the appellants shall deposit the said amount of Rs 25,000 in long-term interest-bearing deposit so that a monthly income is regularly available to the respondent. The receipt for the said deposit of Rs 25,000 shall be delivered to the respondent within one month. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.