ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There is no dispute that the respondent no.5 is a son of the deceased Government employee through his wife, who according to respondent no.5, died in 1989. The petitioner no.1 claims to be the second wife of the deceased employee and got married to him in 1971. According to petitioner no.1, the first wife of the Government employee died on 1971 and subsequent thereto petitioner no.1 got married to the Government employee. As aforesaid the case of the respondent no.5 is that his mother, the admitted wife of the Government employee, died in 1989. This disputed question of fact is the subject matter of a civil suit which is still pending in between petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 on the one hand and the respondent no.5 on the other. 3. There is no dispute that the deceased government employee was a Hindu. If the petitioner no.1 got herself associated with the deceased government employee during the life time of the wife of the deceased government employee, then the status of petitioner No.1 is nothing but that of a concubine. In terms of Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act, she is not entitled to inherit any property of the deceased employee and is not a member of the family of the deceased employee. 4. There is, however, no dispute that the petitioner no.2 was begotten through the association of the deceased government employee and the petitioner no.1 and accordingly, if this association was during the life time of the wife of the deceased government employee, then the status of the petitioner no.2 is nothing but that of an illegitimate child. As such an illegitimate child, petitioner no.2 is entitled to inherit the properties of the deceased employee but he is not a member of the family of the deceased employee in terms of Hindu Succession Act. In this connection, reference may be had to Section 3(j) of the Hindu Succession Act. In terms whereof, the illegitimate children shall be deemed to be related to their mother and to one another and their legitimate descendant but not to their father. 5. Compassionate appointments are given to save the family of the deceased government employee from financial stringency. If petitioner nos. In terms whereof, the illegitimate children shall be deemed to be related to their mother and to one another and their legitimate descendant but not to their father. 5. Compassionate appointments are given to save the family of the deceased government employee from financial stringency. If petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are not members of the family of the deceased employee, question of considering them even in remote connection for any compassionate appointment does not arise. 6. In the instant case, it is the complaint of the petitioner that the respondent no.5 is not looking after petitioner nos. 1 and 2. If petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are not deemed to be members of the family of the deceased government employee, question of respondent no. 5 looking after the petitioners would not arise in law. The status of the petitioners would stand altered in the event the Civil Court declares that the marriage of the petitioner no.1 with the government employee is a legal and valid marriage, provided, of course, such declaration can be given in the event such marriage had taken place after the death of the wife of •the employee, the mother of the respondent no. 5. 7. In the instant case, however, the matter has been decided by the Collector in terms of the direction of the appellate Court not in the light of the discussion as above but on the ground that the petitioners are otherwise well off on account of the fact that they have received the benefits of the retiral dues of the deceased government employee. Until such time the status of the petitioners is declared to be that of legal and legitimate and unless they are treated to be the part of the family of the deceased employee, the question of lending any ear to their complaint to provide any government service would not arise. 8. Until such time the status of the petitioners is declared to be that of legal and legitimate and unless they are treated to be the part of the family of the deceased employee, the question of lending any ear to their complaint to provide any government service would not arise. 8. It is true that when a compassionate appointment is given, the appointee is made to give an undertaking that he will look after the welfare and well being as well as the financial requirements of the members of the family of the deceased and if he does not take care of them, it may be possible in appropriate cases to put that employment to an end by initiating an appropriate proceedings required to be under taken for effecting such an order but such an enquiry can only be initiated provided there is a complaint by a member of the family and not by an outsider. Moreover, even if the complaint is genuine and accordingly the appointment is put to an end, the same will not entitle another appointment to yet another member of the family. 9. The writ petition is, to my opinion, thoroughly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.