ORDER : S.K. Keshote, J. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. The case in hand is a glaring example as to how persons sought to misuse and make attempts to get benefit of the scheme of compassionate employment. The learned advocate for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner who is aged 27 years, married about 4 to 5 years back and he has his own family consisting of his wife and one kid. The learned advocate for the petitioner has not disputed that the father of the petitioner is alive. In the writ petition it has nowhere been mentioned that the father of the petitioner is not in gainful employment. It is also not disputed that father of the petitioner has not prayed for giving him employment under the scheme of compassionate employment. 2. The mother of the petitioner Smt. (late) Lilaben was in service of ONGC as Khalasi (Grade III). She passed away on 28th November, 1991. Petitioner has stated that he submitted an application for giving him compassionate employment on 12th May, 1992 and thereafter, he submitted further applications from time to time to give him compassionate employment. The applications have been filed as annexure to the writ petition. These are Annexure "A","B","C" respectively. It is the grievance of the petitioner that applications have not been considered. Annexure "A" is the application which is filed by the father of the petitioner in which he prayed that the employment should be given to his son. Application (Annexure "B") has been submitted by the father of the petitioner for giving employment to his son. And the last application is also of the father of the petitioner. The first and foremost question which arises, in this case is whether when the father of the petitioner is there and it is not the case that he is out of the employment or not earning anything, can he pray for giving appointment on compassionate ground to his son? Obviously, reply to this question will go in negative. From the tenure of the applications. Annexure A, B & C, it is apparent that the employment is sought as of right. The appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of an employee who died while in service is given to meet out the sudden financial crises which had been in the family due to death of the only bread earning member of the family. Annexure A, B & C, it is apparent that the employment is sought as of right. The appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of an employee who died while in service is given to meet out the sudden financial crises which had been in the family due to death of the only bread earning member of the family. It is not the case that mother was only the breadwinner of the family and petitioner was wholly and solely dependent on her. Father of the petitioner is there and he is depending on him, and who has not considered it to be the case of sudden. financial crisis in the family due to death of his wife. The very fact that the father has not prayed for compassionate employment compels this court to infer that he is in gainful employment and earning sufficient to maintain his family. It is the case where an attempt has been made to get employment through petitioner otherwise is not entitled for the same. In para 5 of the writ petition, petitioner has come up with a case that he has no other source of income and the entire family of the petitioner is dependable upon the petitioner, and therefore, respondent must consider the case positively and give him appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner is praying for appointment on the compassionate ground for the benefit of his own dependent. Petitioner married during the life time of his mother or few months thereafter and it cannot be accepted that he would not have been earning. When the petitioner had married and he has his wife and a kid, he should have been earning something which he deliberately does not disclose. Even if it is accepted that petitioner has no source of income whatsoever to maintain his family then it can reasonably be inferred that his father has sufficient means to maintain him and his family and it cannot be said to be a case of financial crisis in the family due to death of mother of the petitioner which cannot be over come except by way of compassionate employment. Appointments on compassionate ground are not as of right. Sufficient guidelines have been given by the Supreme Court in respect of these appointments. Appointments on compassionate ground are not as of right. Sufficient guidelines have been given by the Supreme Court in respect of these appointments. What are considerations for these appointments has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in 1994 II CLR 4. I cannot do better than to reproduce para Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the said decision of the Supreme Court. "4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismay to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India has been misinterpreted to the point of distrain. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV. In the present case; the High Court has rightly pointed out that the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compassionate employment in Class III posts. However. it appears from the judgment that the State Government had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B. Tech. etc. Such exception, as pointed out above, is illegal, since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualification of his dependent nor the post which he had is relevant. It is for this reason that we are unable to understand the following observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment: "We are of the view that the extraordinary situations require extra ordinary remedies and it is open to the Government in real hard cases to deviate from the letter and spirit of the instructions and to provide relief in cases where it is so warranted. To hold as a matter of law that the Government cannot deviate even minutely from the policy of providing appointment only against Class III and Class IV posts, except that a dependent of a deceased class 1 Officer, should be offered appointment against a Class III or IV post. While we leave it to the Government to exercise its discretion judiciously in making appointments to class I or class II posts on compassionate grounds yet a word of caution needs to be struck. It is to be noted that appointments should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases and in very such exceptional circumstance. As a matter of fact, we would recommend that the Government should frame a policy even for such appointments. 5. It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employee and above Class III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependent of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity. 6. For these very reasons. the 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 to family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 3. Petitioner has no right whatsoever for claiming compassionate employment. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.