( 1 ) THE deceased died over a decade ago in 1993. The Hon ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that compassionate appointment should be granted in close proximity to the death since it is intended to tide a family over a sudden death. The deceased was over 50 years old when he died. The family has, therefore, received benefit of employment which is not available to the vast majority of Indian citizens. The family is also receiving family pension in addition to gratuity and insurances etc. I do not find this to be a case which requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THERE is also a prayer for compassionate appointment. The question of compassionate appointment has been considered in detail by hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri umesh Kumar Nagpai Vs. State of haryana and Others, 1994 (4) SCC 138 . The apex Court has observed that- "2. As a rule, appointments in the Public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, tne family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favorable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. , relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. 3. Unmindful of this legal position, some governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible". ( 3 ) I have already held in the cases of Vishal redhu Vs. Union of India and another inw. P. No. 1278/2004 decided on 27. 1. 2005, Kamla Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors. in WP No. 1749/2005 decided on 2. 2. 2005, Tanveer Hasan Vs. Chief secretary Govt. That is legally impermissible". ( 3 ) I have already held in the cases of Vishal redhu Vs. Union of India and another inw. P. No. 1278/2004 decided on 27. 1. 2005, Kamla Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors. in WP No. 1749/2005 decided on 2. 2. 2005, Tanveer Hasan Vs. Chief secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi in W. P. No. 2159/2002 decided on 3. 2. 2005, Amit kumar Vs. N. D. M. C. in W. P. 13687/2004 decided on 7. 2. 2005 and Nandan Singh and anr. Vs. I. I. P. A. in W. P. 5260/2001 decided on 18. 2. 2005 that compassionate appointment runs contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. I have considered this question in detail in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shir Vir Mohd. , 94 (2001)DLT 746, which had been dismissed by me. ( 4 ) THE petition is wholly without merit. Hence dismissed. .