JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.—This appeal has been filed along with I.A. I to condone the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. I.A. I and the appeal are taken up together for disposal. 2. Chidananda Bhagoji who was working as peon in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division-cum-Judicial First Class), Gokak, Belgaum, died on 29th September, 1996 while in service leaving behind his widow and three minor children. Widow filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased had received in all a sum of Rs. 46,925/- (Rs. 22,800/-as death cum retirement gratuity, Rs. 4,125/- as leave salary and Rs. 20,000/- as group insurance) over and above Rs. 500/- per mensum as family pension. Appointment on compassionate grounds was denied by the authorities relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in R.V. Krishnappa Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore, (1998) 2 KarLJ 116 . 3. Aggrieved against the order passed by the authorities declining appointment on compassionate grounds, widow filed a writ petition to this Court. Learned Single Judge after referring to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) rules, 1996 held that the judgment in R.V. Krishnappa's case, supra, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and that the authorities failed to take into consideration the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 which were applicable to the cases of appointment on compassionate grounds. A reference was made to condition No. 4(1) of the conditions of appointment of these Rules that while determining the financial crisis of the family of the deceased "the income from family pension, lump sum pensionary benefits and interest earned thereon shall be excluded". According to the Single Judge, if these benefits received by the family of the deceased are excluded then the family would be in a financial crisis. The order of the authorities had been set aside and a direction has been issued to the authorities to reconsider the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the rules in question. 4. In our view, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. R.V. Krisknappa's case was in respect of rules framed by the Karnataka Electricity Board. 4. In our view, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. R.V. Krisknappa's case was in respect of rules framed by the Karnataka Electricity Board. Claim of the respondent-widow had to be decided in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. Her case could not be rejected relying upon the R.V. Krishnappa's case, as the same was applicable to the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees only. The cases of other employees of the State of Karnataka have to be decided in terms of 1996 Rules referred to above. We do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. 5. We decline to condone the delay in filing the appeal as we do not find any merit in the appeal and no purpose would be served in issuing notice to the respondent to come and defend the application for condonation of delay only. 6. I.A. I is also dismissed.