Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 26.2.97 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been refused appointment on compassionate ground and further for a direction to the respondents to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. The petitioners case is that his father was employed under the respondent no.1 State in the Department of Extension Training Centre, Hehal, Ranchi on the post of laboratory Assistant. The petitioners father died on 13.4.91. After the death of his father, the petitioner immediately applied before the concerned respondent for compassionate appointment on the ground, inter alia, that there is no earning member in the family and the entire family members of the petitioner are facing hardship. The application was processed by the respondent and thereafter by order dated 26.2.97 the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has sufficient means of maintaining his livelihood. It is stated by the petitioner that he filed affidavit before the concerned respondent stating, inter alia, that there is no sufficient means to maintain the family and no members of the family have any income from any sources. The petitioner also filed a detailed representation before the concerned respondent but nothing has been done. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3, it is stated, inter alia, that the application for appointment on compassionate ground submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Joint Director Agriculture, Ranchi, who in turn forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for obtaining recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee. The Committee, after careful consideration, found the case of the petitioner unfit for recommendation because the financial condition of the dependants of the deceased employee was sound enough for the maintenance of the petitioner and the family members. It is stated that the Committee found that the dependant members of the deceased employee have 60 dicimals of land in village Hatma, P.S. Ranchi and the annual income of the family is Rs.10,000/- which is sufficient for maintenance of the the District Compassionate Committee in the meeting held on 23.7.97 when a petition for reconsideration of his case was filed by the petitioner. The committee again rejected the petition on the ground that the economic condition of the dependant of the deceased Government employee is sound. 4. I have heard Mr. The committee again rejected the petition on the ground that the economic condition of the dependant of the deceased Government employee is sound. 4. I have heard Mr. D.K.Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.K.Marathia, learned GP 2. 5. From perusal of the counter affidavit and the documents annexed therewith, it transpires that when the application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner, an enquiry with regard to the property of the petitioner was made and it was found that the members of the family of the deceased was also assessed by the Circle Officer. On the basis of these materials the Committee in its meeting held on 16.12.96 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground stated hereinbefore. The petitioner instead of coming to this Court, again filed a representation for reconsideration of his case. The Committee in its meeting held on 23.6.97 again reconsidered the case of the petitioner and took the same decision. It is, therefore, not a case where the Compassionate Committee has taken its decision without making any enquiry and without considering the relevant factors for the purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground. Be that as it may, more than 8 years have passed but the petitioner has been pursuing his case. 6. It is well settled that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment and it is for the authorities to consider whether the family of the deceased is unable to meet compassionate ground lapses after expiry of the reasonable period. As noticed above more than 8 years have passed and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Compassionate Committee after making necessary enquiry and after considering the financial condition of the members of the deceased family. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere with the decision of the Compassionate Committee after expiry of such period. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.