Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is widow of a Class IV employee of a Government company which was earlier known as Mica Trading Corporaton of India Limited. Upon death of her husband in January 1995, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis on 18.5.1995. The said application was followed by further representations but her claim was rejected by an order dated 6.10.1995 contained in Annexure-1. The petitioner in fact wants quashing of the order contained in Annexure-1 and direction to the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground. 3. Admittedly, Mica Trading Corporation of India Limited was government company which had become sick some times earlier to death of petitioners husband and hence since 1991 a decision was taken not to appoint any person even on compassionate ground. Subsequently, on account of intervention by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction(in short BIFR), the Mica Trading Corporation of India Limited was merged with another government company known as Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation of India Limited. The merger was effected in June 1996 but with effect from 1.4.1995 as per order of BIFR. The BIFR found the company to the over-staffed and therefore reduction of man-power strength was imposed as condition precedent of the said merger. As per counter affidavit, in 1991 the total staff strength in MITCO was 1380 (approx.) which was required to be reduced to 220 but in spite of several measures the strength could be reduced to 508 when the rehabilitation scheme was approved by BIFR. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the stand of the respondents in the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 as well as in the counter affidavit is that even after merger MITCO appearing as Mica Division of MMTC Ltd, and because of over-staffing is not in a position to formulate a policy to offer appointment on compassionate basis. According to the respondents there is still a need to reduce the strength of employees in the Mica Division and hence the respondents should not be forced to give employment to any person on any ground including the ground of compassion. 5. It is well settled in law that there is no righ in the dependents of the deceased employee to claim appointment on compassionate basis as a matter of right. 5. It is well settled in law that there is no righ in the dependents of the deceased employee to claim appointment on compassionate basis as a matter of right. Right for consideration to such employment can arise only on ground of legal provisions or policy decisions to that effect. In this case the respondents have taken a categorical stand that as per their present policy they cannot offer employment to any person even on compassionate ground. Such a stand does not appear to be arbitrary and is rather based upon certain facts which have led to merger of the old company with another company. In such circumstances, it is not possible for this court to issue any mandamus or direction upon the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Hence, this court finds itself unable to grant any relief to the petitioner and accordingly this application is dismissed. However, if in future the respondents adopt a new policy decision and decide to offer employment on compassionate ground and if such policy permits consideration of present case on its merits then the respondents shall consider her case in accordance with law. 6. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to cost.