R. P. SETHI, CJ. ( 1 ) COMPASSIONATE appointments cannot be equated with compensatory, substituted or in lieu of deceased employee is services. Compassionate appointment is conferred on account of fellow-feeling or sorrow for the suffering of another, as pity or mercy. Such appointments are resorted to in exceptional circumstances of personal reasons in a given case. This court and the administrative tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by only sympathetic consideration. Law is acknowledged to be the embodiment of all wisdom, and Justice according to law is a principle as old as the seas on the earth. The apex court in Martin Burn Limited v Corporation of Calcutta, Observed:in Life Insurance Corporation of India v Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and another, it was held that the court should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law and disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, should not be done. ( 2 ) IN the background of what is noted herein above we are called upon to decide in this petition, "the question whether the dependant member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled for an appointment on compassionate grounds in spite of two other major members who are living separately are employed either with the same employer or anywhere else". This question of law has been referred to us in view of the two different decisions of the single bench of this court. One being Susheela B. Bhakta and another v Karnataka State Road Transport corporation, bangalore and another and the other Case is Srikanth v Chief engineer, k. e. b. , Bangalore and others. In susheela B. Bhakta's case, supra, it was held:and in srikanth's case, supra, it was held: ( 3 ) THE facts which necessitated the authoritative pronouncement by this bench are after the death of his father viz. , ugrappa, the petitioner herein prayed for his appointment as junior assistant on compassionate grounds. At the time of his death the said ugrappa was in the service of the respondent-board as mechanic grade-ii and died due to brain tumour on 9-12-1991. The said Sri ugrappa left behind his wife Smt. Gowramma and three sons, the third being the petitioner. , ugrappa, the petitioner herein prayed for his appointment as junior assistant on compassionate grounds. At the time of his death the said ugrappa was in the service of the respondent-board as mechanic grade-ii and died due to brain tumour on 9-12-1991. The said Sri ugrappa left behind his wife Smt. Gowramma and three sons, the third being the petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of his death the father of the petitioner was the only breadearner of the family. After his death the family came to a State of starvation without any source of livelihood. It was further contended that the two other brothers of the petitioner who are admittedly in service, had allegedly separated from the family about ten years before the death of his father. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent-board against which the petitioner filed w. p. No. 10910 of 1993 which was disposed of on 11-11-1993, directing the respondent-board to consider petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The board again by its endorsement dated 20-7-1995, Annexure-G rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the family had sufficient means and source of living. The petitioner contended that the board had under similar circumstances granted employment to the petitioners in w. p. nos. 28042 to 28045 of 1991. It is contended that the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and did not suffer from any disqualification. It is alleged that the board was not justified in holding that the income of the family of the petitioner was sufficient because they have wrongly included the income of the two brothers of the petitioner who were stated to have been living separately during the life time of petitioner's father. ( 4 ) AS noted earlier compassionate appointments cannot be sought as a matter of right. The supreme court in life insurance corporation of India's case, supra, held that appointment on compassionate grounds could not be made contrary to the instructions issued for such appointments. In that case it was held that as the relevant instructions did not contemplate appointment when one of the members of the deceased family was gainfully employed, the court could not direct the appointment to be made contrary to such instructions. In that case it was held that as the relevant instructions did not contemplate appointment when one of the members of the deceased family was gainfully employed, the court could not direct the appointment to be made contrary to such instructions. ( 5 ) IN Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana and others , the court held: ( 6 ) IN State of Bihar and others v Samsuz Zoha, it is held: ( 7 ) IN susheela's case, supra, this court after referring to various judgments of the apex court held that for appropriately dealing with an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground it was incumbent upon the authorities to ascertain as to whether the family comprised of the dependents of deceased employee had any income from any source to sustain their livelihood and if it was found that but for a job offered to one of the eligible dependents their family could not tide over the crisis, compassionate employment be given to the eligible dependant and in that event mere employment of the sons of the deceased could not clinch the issue of not granting compassionate appointment, if on facts it was found that such son had separated from the family of the deceased during his life-time. ( 8 ) IN srikanth's case, supra, it was held that the purpose of compassionate appointment was to assist the family at the time of crisis due to the death of the bread-winner. Referring to the relevant instructions applicable in the case the learned judge held: ( 9 ) AFTER referring to various pronouncements made by the apex court and this court, it can be concluded that: ( 10 ) IN view of this settled position of law as we have noted herein above there is no necessity of specifically laying-down as to which of the two judgments of this court i. e. , susheela's case, supra and srikanth's case, supra, has laid down the correct law. In both the cases the learned judges have taken note of various pronouncements of the apex court and decided the cases in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances. ( 11 ) IN the instant case the appointment on compassionate grounds are admittedly governed by the policy of the respondent-board circulated vide communication dated 25-6-1990. In both the cases the learned judges have taken note of various pronouncements of the apex court and decided the cases in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances. ( 11 ) IN the instant case the appointment on compassionate grounds are admittedly governed by the policy of the respondent-board circulated vide communication dated 25-6-1990. The board is stated to have evolved a definite policy by prescribing guidelines in the matter of providing appointment to the widow/son/unmarried daughter/near relatives of a board employee who dies while in service. According to aforesaid policy the financial condition of the family is the main criteria for determining the eligibility for compassionate appointment. The appointment cannot be refused merely on the ground of the petitioner's brothers being in service despite the fact that they had separated before the death of the deceased-employee. After the directions were issued by this court in w. p. No. 10910 of 1993, the respondent-board is stated to have held an enquiry on facts and found (annexure-g): ( 12 ) IT is therefore clear that the claim of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected strictly in accordance with the prevalent policy and after holding enquiry with respect to the financial position of the family of the deceased employee. ( 13 ) THERE is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. --- *** --- .