ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In both the cases, as common question of law involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties. 3. Late Dukhan Prajapati, father of petitioner, Bisheshwar Prajapati was Range Chowkidar at Station Headquarters, Ramgarh Cantt under the Union of India. The employee died in harness on 3rd February, 1997 wherein after the petitioner, Bisheshwar Prajapati applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 2nd April, 1998. His application for appointment has been rejected on the following grounds : "After due circumspection and consideration of the circumstances of the case in the light of the guidelines of DOP & Ts and various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court after a balanced and objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case the competent authority has not approved the appointment of Shri Visheshwar Prajapati, s/o late Shri Dukhan Prajapati, on compassionate grounds after taking note of the following facts of this case : (a) The death of the government servant occurred on 27th October, 1998. Thus the need for immediate assistance by way of compassionate employment to tide over the emergency and crisis is lacking in this case. (b) The deceaseds family received Rs. 68829/- as terminal benefits. At present they are in receipt of Rs. 1485/-+ D.A. per month as family pension. (c) The deceased has left no liability. The daughter of the deceased is already married." 4. Late Jaso Nayak, father of petitioner, Mahendra Nayak was ex-Consy Safaiwala of Station Headquarters, Ramgarh Cantt. The employee died on 20th November, 1996 wherein after the petitioner, Mahendra Nayak applied for compassionate appointment. His case has also been rejected for similar ground vide letter dated 27th August, 2001, as quoted hereunder ; The case of Shri Mahendra Nayak has been re-examined. The competent authority considered following facts of the ease : (a) The death of the government servant occurred on 20.11.1996. The need for immediate assistance by way of compassionate employment to tide over the emergency and crisis is lacking in this case. (b) The deceaseds family received Rs. 68735/- as terminal benefits. At present they are in receipt of Rs. 1425/-as family pension per month. (c) The deceased has left no the liability of minor children. The daughters of the deceased are already married. (b) The deceaseds family received Rs. 68735/- as terminal benefits. At present they are in receipt of Rs. 1425/-as family pension per month. (c) The deceased has left no the liability of minor children. The daughters of the deceased are already married. After due circumspection and consideration of the circumstances of the case in the light of the guidelines of DOP & Ts and various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court after a balanced and objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case the competent authority has not approved the appointment of Shri Mahendra Nayak s/o late Shri Jasso Nayak, ex-Consy Safaiwala of Station HQ Ramgarh on compassionate grounds." 5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The petitioners have no right to claim appointment. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 . 6. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondents being not satisfied with the ground shown in the rejection orders which are same and similar in both the cases as quoted above. The non- application of mind of the respondents is also evident from the fact that though Sri Dukhan Prajapati died on 3rd February, 1997, in the letter dated 2nd August, 2001, it is mentioned that the death of the government servant occurred on 27th October, 1998. 7. The fact that the deceaseds family received certain amount as death benefits cannot be ground to deny compassionate appointment. In this respect, it is better to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 . In the said case, the Supreme Court held as follows : ".....But in our view this FamilyBenefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bradearner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family - this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bradearner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family - this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief- stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breaderner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." 8. In the case of Balbir Kaur, (supra), the employee died on 22nd November, 1992 and the appeal before the High Court was dismissed in the year 1996 but there being continuity of cause of action, even after seven and half years of death, the Supreme Court remitted the case for re-consideration, vide its judgment dated 5th May, 2000. 9. In both the cases, the death took place merely in the year 1996-97 and there is continuity of cause of action. Now, it is not open to the respondents to say the need of assistance by way of compassionate appointment is no more there. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 2nd August, 2001 challenged in W.P. (C) No. 2092 of 2003 and order dated 27th August, 2001 challenged in W.P. (C) No. 2072 of 2003 being illegal, they are set aside. 11. The cases of both the petitioners, namely, Shree Bisheshwar Prajapati and Mahendra Nayak are remitted to the competent authority for re-consideration of their cases for appointment on compassionate ground without taking into consideration the ground shown in the orders which have been quashed. 12. Appropriate decision be communicated to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. Both the writ petitions are allowed, with the aforesaid observations/ directions.