Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed challenging order dated 29.6.1998, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal contained in annexure 10, whereby application filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the authorities rejecting the prayer for making appointment - on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. The short facts are that the husband of petitioner no. 2 died on 31.5.1987, when he was posted as Tax Recovery Officer. Petitioner no. 2 applied for appointment of her daughter, who is petitioner no.1, on compassionate ground in the year 1989, which, we are told, was rejected. Subsequently, as would appear from the order, contained in annexure 6, the application for appointment on compassionate ground filed on 26.07.1990 was rejected by the concerned authority vide its order dated 24.09.1990 (annexure 6) at a time when petitioner no.1 was" unmarried. We are told that in the year 1994 petitioner no. 1 was married and thereafter again the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made after expiry of four years on 8.12.1994 from the date of rejection of the earlier one. The said application was rejected on 7.7.1995, whereafter in the year 1996 an application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said order, which has rejected the same by the impugned order dated 29.06.1998, contained in annexure 10, on the ground that petitioner no.1 is a married lady. Hence this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners firstly submitted that the authorities were not justified in law in rejecting the appointment of petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground without assigning any reason and on this ground alone, petitioner no.1 may be appointed on compass onate ground. We do not find any substance in this submission. It is true that in the order rejecting the representation, no reason has been assigned, but stand was taken before the Tribunal that son of petitioner no.2 was already under employment as Inspector of Customs and Central Excise. On behalf of the petitioners, no material was produced before the Tribunal to show that her son, Shakti Bhushan, was separate from petitioner no.2. 5. It is well settled that whole purpose of giving employment on compassionate ground is to give immediate financial benefit to the members of the bereaved family. In the case in hand, the deceased, husband of petitioner no. 5. It is well settled that whole purpose of giving employment on compassionate ground is to give immediate financial benefit to the members of the bereaved family. In the case in hand, the deceased, husband of petitioner no. 2, died in the year 1987, and the application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in the year 1990. Thereafter, the petitioners waited for four years and neither they moved the Tribunal nor any other forum challenging the said order. In our view, the Tribunal should have rejected the application for making appointment on compassionate ground on this ground as well, because the second application was filed after four years from the date of rejection of the earlier one. That apart as petitioner no. 1 has been married in the year 1994, she cannot be said to be dependent of her mother, who is petitioner no. 2, because after the marriage, the responsibility of a married lady is that of her husband. 6. This being the position, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal; therefore, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.