N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) BY way of this Special Civil Application under Art. 226 of the constitution of India the petitioner seeks direction against the respondent to appoint her on the post of Class IV on compassionate ground. ( 2 ) NECESSARY facts leading to the present Special Civil Application are that the petitioners husband-Mohanbhai Chaudhary who was serving with respondent-Oil and natural Gas Commission (for short the Commission) as Security Supervisor died on 19. 5. 1986. The petitioner made application for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was forwarded by the Dy. Director (Panda) under communication dated 6. 1. 1997 to the Dy. General Manager, ONGC, Ahmedabad. A proposal was forwarded to consider rehabilitation of the petitioner in the Vocational Centre at ahmedabad in terms of instructions contained in the office order No. 7 (6)/85-86-Welfare dated 24. 9. 1986. In view of it, the petitioner was appointed in the Vocational Centre under memo dated 25. 5. 1987. The petitioner joined the service with the Ladies Club of the Corporation. She was paid initially a sum of Rs. 500/- p. m. which was subsequently raised to Rs. 1,200/- per month. The said appointment was purely on ad hoc basis as welfare measure. The service of the petitioner in the said Club came to be terminated w. e. f. 6. 3. 1995 on account of closure of the said Club. It may be stated that in the year 1988, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application which was registered as Special Civil Application No. 7073/1988. The said application was rejected by order of this Court dated 19. 10. 1988. However, the Court gave liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondent ONGC. The Court also observed that if such representation is made, the same shall be looked into sympathetically. The petitioner made representation after almost 8 year i. e. , on 10. 3. 1995. While the said representation was pending the present Special Civil Application was filed on 28. 4. 1995. The representation was rejected by communication dated 26. 6. 1995. The petitioner was reminded that her case for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected under communication dated 6. 11. 1987. She was also told that the scheme for employment assistance to the dependent heirs of the deceased employee is effective form 2. 6. 4. 1995. The representation was rejected by communication dated 26. 6. 1995. The petitioner was reminded that her case for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected under communication dated 6. 11. 1987. She was also told that the scheme for employment assistance to the dependent heirs of the deceased employee is effective form 2. 6. 1987 and is also made applicable to the pending cases of death occurring after 1. 1. 1982, but her case is not covered under the said scheme. She was entitled to a lumpsum financial assistance only which has been offered to her. ( 3 ) MR. I. S. Supehia, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a widow and she is required to maintain three children. Under the scheme, she is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. It is also submitted that it is a clear case of hostile discrimination, inasmuch as that many widows of the deceased employees, the details of which have been given in para 7 of the petition, have been given appeintment on compassionate ground. They have been given appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 1156-1526. The learned Advocate also contends that on class IV post, illiterate person can he appointed and in fact such appointments have been made, and therefore, the petitioners request cannot be rejected on the ground that she does not fulfil the necessary educational qualification. With respect to age, he states that the petitioners date of birth is 1. 6. 1951 and as such at the time of the death of her husband, she was around 35 years of age. She is of course above 45 years of age now, but there is a provision for relaxation and in fact such relaxation has been made in several other cases. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Nirav C Thakker, learned Advocate appearing for the ongc submits that the petitioner was gainfully engaged with the Ladies Club, and therefore, she is not entitled now for appointment on compassionate ground. He further submitted that so far as the first representation of the petitioner is concerned, the same was decided as back as on 16. 1. 1987. The High Court, by order dated 19. 12. 1988, gave liberty to the petitioner to make representation, but such representation could have been made only within a reasonable time. He further submitted that so far as the first representation of the petitioner is concerned, the same was decided as back as on 16. 1. 1987. The High Court, by order dated 19. 12. 1988, gave liberty to the petitioner to make representation, but such representation could have been made only within a reasonable time. The representation was made after 8 years, and therefore, there is a delay in filing the representation. Relying on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3887 , it is submitted that the application for compassionate ground is not maintainable on the ground of delay as well. Dealing with the cases of other widows referred by the petitioner, it is submitted that those cases are distinguishable. They were given benefit under different set of circumstances. ( 5 ) IN case of Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976 , an application was made in November, 1982 for appointment as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground for the reason that her husband had died in October, 1982 in harness leaving behind her and two minor children. In January, 1983, she was called for written test and later on for interview. She also passed the trade test. Still she was not given appointment, and therefore, she approached the High Court. The writ petition was rejected by the High Court in the statement made by the learned Advocate for the Union of India that it is not possible to give her appointment. The Apex Court found the denial of appointment patently arbitrary. The Court also held that there should not be any delay on appointment on compassionate ground, as the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. The Court said thus:"such appointment should therefore be provided immediately to relieve the family in distress. It is improper to keep such cases pending for years. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) IN the case of Life Insurance Corporation vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, reported in 1994 (2) SC 718, the employee died on 11. 9. 1987. His widow made on application immediately for appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected on 12. 12. It is improper to keep such cases pending for years. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) IN the case of Life Insurance Corporation vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, reported in 1994 (2) SC 718, the employee died on 11. 9. 1987. His widow made on application immediately for appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected on 12. 12. 1987 or the ground that she exceeds the upper age limit of 45 years. The High court directed the respondent to give appointment to the son of the deceased compassionate ground. It was contended before the Apex Court that no direction could be given contrary to the regulations and instructions which govern appointment on compassionate ground. The Apex Court examined the scheme framed by the LIC known as Life Insurance Corporation Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1979 which also contained the provisions for appointment of. staff on compassionate ground upon demise of a member of the staff of LIC while in service. It was found that direction to appointment the son of the deceased was contrary to the aforesaid Regulations and Instructions of the LIC. The Apex Court reminded the High Court that the law does not confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. The Court said thus 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. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, it should never be done. " ( 7 ) IN the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. , reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 . The Court observed that its earlier decision in the case of Sushma Gosains case (supra) has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The Court observed that the said decision does not justify compassionate appointment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Class III and IV. The Court also held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The Court observed thus the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The Court also held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The Court observed thus 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 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. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 8 ) IN the case of Union of India vs. Bhagwan Singh, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 476 , one Ram Singh, Sr. Clerk in the Railways died on 12. 9. 1972 leaving behind his wife, two major sons and a minor son aged 12 years, third son attained majority in 1980/81, and passed hsc Examination in 1983. The said son applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected on the ground that at the time of death of Ram Singh, there were two major sons who did not seek employment and the family was not in financial distress. Secondly, under the rules, such an application could be made only within a period of 5 years from the date of occurrence of the event and in no case beyond 10 years from the date of death of the employee. On examining the facts, the court found that at the time of death of Ramsingh, the family was capable of meeting the needs, and pulled the family for 20 years. In this background, there was no justification to direct for appointment on compassionate ground. ( 9 ) IN the case of State of Haryana vs. Rani Devi, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2445 the husband of the applicant was appointed on ad hoc basis as Apprentice Canal Patwari. The application made by the widow for compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the scheme in respect of payment of ex gratia grant or giving an appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased Government employee is not applicable to casual, ad hoc employees or employees who are just apprentice. On a petition filed by the widow, the high Court gave a direction to appoint her against Class IV post on compassionate ground. On a petition filed by the widow, the high Court gave a direction to appoint her against Class IV post on compassionate ground. The Apex Court noticed its observation in Umesh Kumar Nagpals case (supra) that as a rule, appointment in public services should be made on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. Appointment on compassionate ground being exception of the said rule can be made only in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. The Court found that the applicant was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground as her husband, at time of death, was only working as apprentice and thus, under the scheme, she was not eligible to such appointment. The Court observed thus"if the scheme or recruitment or appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all sorts of casual, ad hoc employees including those who are working as apprentice, then such scheme cannot be justified on Constitutional grounds. It cannot not be pointed out that appointments on compassionate grounds, are made as a matter of course without even requiring the person concerned to face any Selection Committee. "in the case of Haryana Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3887 , one Hakim Singh died, in the year 1974 in harness leaving behind his widow and minor children. About 14 years after the death of Hakim Singh, his widow applied for appointment of her son. The said application was rejected on the ground that as per the scheme of the Board, one member of the family of the deceased employee should be considered for employment in service of the Board as goodwill gesture, provided request for such employment is made within one year of the death of the employee. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of writ petition which was allowed and a direction was given to consider the case of the applicant in the case for employment of the Board on compassionate ground. The Court found that the High Court erred in over-stretching the scope of compassionate relief porvided by the Board. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of writ petition which was allowed and a direction was given to consider the case of the applicant in the case for employment of the Board on compassionate ground. The Court found that the High Court erred in over-stretching the scope of compassionate relief porvided by the Board. The Court after referring the earlier decisions, held that if a family member of the deceased emloyee can manage for 14 years after his death, one of his legal heirs cannot put forward his claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of right of inheritance. The Court reminded the object is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of tis sole earning member. The Court further observed that porviding such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. ( 10 ) IN the case of State of U. P. vs. Paras Nath, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412 , father of the applicant died on 8. 6. 1969 while he was in service. At the time of his death, there were no rules permitting appointment of a dependant of such a person dying in harness on compassionate grounds, with effect from 21. 2. 1997, the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment, of dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 came into force. Clause 5 of the Rules clearly provides that the rules will apply in the case of a government servant who dies in harness after the commencement of these Rules. The applicant was only two years old when his father died. Application was made on 8. 1. 1996 i. e. , after 17 years of the death of his father. His application was rejected. He, however, succeeded before the High Court. The Apex Court held that no such consideration would normally operate when the application is made after 17 years of the death of the Government servant. ( 11 ) FROM the comspectus of the aforesaid decisions, the broad-guiding factors for consideration of the prayer for appointment on comapssionate ground emerges as follows: (i) The appointment on comapassionate ground in public service being exception to general rule of open invitation and merit, should be regulated strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. ( 11 ) FROM the comspectus of the aforesaid decisions, the broad-guiding factors for consideration of the prayer for appointment on comapssionate ground emerges as follows: (i) The appointment on comapassionate ground in public service being exception to general rule of open invitation and merit, should be regulated strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. (ii) The application for appointment on compassionate ground should be dealt with promptly and in deserving cases should be provided immediately to achieve the object of mitigating hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. (iii) In should be need based. It is not a matter of routine. If the family is capable of meeting the needs or by passage of time the wound is healed up and the family is not in that financial crisis as it was at the time of demise of the earning member of the family, the relief should not be granted. (iv) One should be sensitive to issues but not over-sympathetic at the cost of others and public interest. ( 12 ) IN the case in hand, respondent-ONGC framed a scheme which is known as " a scheme for providing financial assistance to one dependent of employee who suffers permanent total disability or dies while in service of the ONGC and leaves his family In financial distress. The scheme has been made applicable w. e. f. 2. 6. 1987. Clause 2 provides that In the event of death during the service in the commission or permanent total disability while on duty in service of the commission. The Commission may provide rehabilitation of the family of such employee who leaves his family In Indlgency and acute financial distress, make "lumpsum" payment, as provided under the schedule. Such lumpsum payment is payable subject to conditions provided in clause 2. 3. The lumpsum payment has been made applicable to the cases where the death has occurred not before 1. 1. 1982 and where the spouse or dependants have not been given such employment. Clause 3 provides that the Commission may, subject to availability of vacancies, consider employment of the dependant family member of the employee subject to his possessing the prescribed qualification, experience and age requirements etc. One of the conditions is that the application for employment under the scheme should reach the Commission for consideration latest within six months front the date of death of the employee. One of the conditions is that the application for employment under the scheme should reach the Commission for consideration latest within six months front the date of death of the employee. ( 13 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was in gainful employment upto 1995. She admittedly above 45 years of age. Out of the three children, two have married and the third male child has passed 12th standard. A sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been deposited with this Court in pursuance of the order dated 24. 7. 1995 and the amount has been invested in FD. with the State Bank of India. The deposit carries interest payable every month and the Court had directed that the interest amount be paid to the petitioner. Thus, on the facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in such a distress that she should be offered employment on compassionate ground. When she needed the help, she was given appointment with the Ladies Club of the Commission. It is of course true that her services have been terminated on account of closure of the club but i. e. , entirely a different cause of action and that will not revive her case for appointment on compassionate ground. She has managed for almost 12 years during which she performed the marriage of her two daughters. Her case has been dealt with in accordance with the scheme of the ONGC and she has been offered lumpsum amount as provided in the scheme. In view of this, she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. ( 14 ) DEALING with the contention of hostile discrimination, it is stated in the affidavit filed by Mr. KE Varghese, Administrative Officer, Coordination Section (Personal and administration), ONGC that Savitaben Ishwarlal was given appointment as she belongs to SC/st community and further she has been appointed as Sanitary Cleaner Grade III as she was willing to wash bath rooms and clean lavoratories in addition to general sweeping job. It is of course true that the petitioner has also agreed to wash bath rooms and clean lavoratories. But simply on that ground the petitioner cannot be placed at par with the case of Savitaben Ishwarlal. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this special civil application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. But simply on that ground the petitioner cannot be placed at par with the case of Savitaben Ishwarlal. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this special civil application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However, by order of this Court dated 24. 7. 1995 whereby an amount of Rs. 75, 000/- has been deposited, stands confirmed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner is interested in withdrawing the amount of Rs. 75,000/- deposited in this Court with interest accrued thereon. In view of this, it is directed that on maturity of the Fixed Deposit, the amount with interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the petitioner on her being identified by the learned advocate for the petitioner. .