ORAL JUDGMENT R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. :- Heard. Petitioner, by the pr petition, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.3 and appoint the petitioner as a class IV employee in the vocational school run by said respondents either in place of her deceased husband or any other class post. 2. The facts, in brief, relevant for decision, are that the petitioners husband was appointed as a peon in the vocational school run by the respondent No.3 expired, while in service, on 16th September, 1996. The petitioner there filed an application for employment on compassionate ground. As there favorable response from the respondents, the petitioner also approaches respondent No.2, whereupon by his letter dated 1st January, 1997 called respondent No.3 to submit its remarks on the grievance made by the petitioner The request for employment on compassionate ground was again reiterate the petitioner under her application dated 2nd January, 1997 and, in that r also respondent No. 2 by its letter dated 31st March, 1997 called upon respondent Nos.3 and 4 to submit their remarks. Under letter dated 12th M 1999, by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, it was informed that no app would be granted to any person appointed in place of petitioners deceased husband as it is obligatory for the respondent No.3 to appoint the petition compassionate ground. Since in spite of the said letter, the respondent No. not appoint the petitioner, the present petition came to be filed. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on admission on 2nd May, while issuing notice to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Division B comprising of Shri A. P. Shah and Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, 11. had direct said respondents by way of interim order to appoint the petitioner as a peon the academic year commencing from June, 2000, and it appears according petitioner was appointed as the peon. 4. 3 and 4, the Division B comprising of Shri A. P. Shah and Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, 11. had direct said respondents by way of interim order to appoint the petitioner as a peon the academic year commencing from June, 2000, and it appears according petitioner was appointed as the peon. 4. Drawing attention to G.R. dated 31st December, 2002, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the government policy to provide employment on compassionate ground, in case of death employee while in service and the family, being in distress, requiring fin assistance, coupled with the fact that under the said G. R. condition regarding availability of other financial resources being not made an construction granting such facility, merely because the petitioner was granted family peon the death of her husband, the same cannot be construed as a bar for availing such facility to the petitioner. He further submitted that the family pension c be construed as an income of the family in the sense the term ‘income’ commonly understood. According to the learned advocate appearing for petitioner, the amount received by way of family pension cannot be construction the income earned by surviving member of the family . 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner also sought to rely up to decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balbir Kaur and another vs. Authority of India Ltd. and others, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 . 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other placed reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of St Rajasthan vs. Chandra Narain Verma, reported in (/994) 2 SCC 752; St K and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766 ; and National Bank and others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, reported in 2005( 1) J, (Se) 502 = (2004) 7 SCC 265 and submitted that employment on compassionate ground is not as a matter of right. Rules framed by the concerned authorizes or service conditions of the employee in that regard are to be strictly ed and financial position of the dependents of deceased is also to be compassionate and considered before entertaining a claim for employment on compassionate ground. Rules framed by the concerned authorizes or service conditions of the employee in that regard are to be strictly ed and financial position of the dependents of deceased is also to be compassionate and considered before entertaining a claim for employment on compassionate ground. In the case in hand, according to the learned advocate, the, petitioner having been paid family pension, the same was duly considered and all ground, the application of the petitioner was rejected. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner also contended that there was specific direction issued to the respondents by the concerned authority under its dated 12th March, 1999 reminding them about their obligation to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground and said direction had r been challenged by the respondents and the same is binding upon the students and, therefore, the petitioners claim for employment on compassionate ground could not have been denied by the respondents. In that d, our attention is drawn to clause 33 of the letter dated 12th March, 1982, the Director of Education, Government of Maharashtra, addressed to all ised schools. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Harayana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 had clearly held that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to over the sudden crisis and it is not to give a member of such family a post. much less a post for post held by the deceased member of such family. It was held that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood and, the authority concerned, with such a situation, has examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and, only on satisfaction that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It was also held that consideration for such employment is not a vested right. 9. It was also held that consideration for such employment is not a vested right. 9. While reiterating the concept of compassionate appointment, the Apex court in the matter of General Manager (D and P B) and others vs. Kunit Tiwary another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 held that an appointment by way of passionate appointment is an exception carved out of the general rule for appointment on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. This exception has to be resorted to in cases of penury where the dependents of an employee are left without any means of livelihood and that unless some source of childhood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet. 10. Likewise in Sajad Ahmed Mir case (supra), the Apex Court had reminded that normally an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply compete with each other. Considering the mandate of Article 14 of the institution, an appointment to the public office should be only on the basis of imputative merits. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand such as, death of sale breadwinner and childhood of the family suffering because of the set-back. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substance period is over, there cannot be necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of se others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Taneja (supra), taking stock of its various earlier decisions, including one in Kunti Tiwarys had held that one thing which needs to be considered in such case is the benefits which are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer compassionate appointment and, in that regard, after referring to the decision Kunti Tiwarys case, it was clearly held that such amounts should be taken into consideration. 12. 12. Taking into consideration the law on the point as revealed fro above referred decisions of the Apex Court, it is abundantly clear that employment on compassionate ground is not as a matter of right, but it is form of facility provided to the surviving members of the family of the deceasrd employee to tide over the sudden crisis on account of the death of breadwinner. While considering such claim, the concerned authorities or public institution have to take into consideration the financial status of the family and ha ascertain, whether there are source available to the family for their liveli and, also to ascertain, whether there are earning members in the family, an income of the family would obviously include even family pension. Indeed is the law laid down in Kunti Tiwarys case as well as reiterated in Ash Kumar Tanejas case. Besides, even the letter dated 12th April, 1982 by Director of Education, Maharashtra State, addressed to all the recoinsed institutions, clearly stated that while considering that application for employ on compassionate ground, the concerned institution should ascertain, whether family has any income from immovable property as also from on account family pension and, in case the same happens to be more than Rs. 500/- it disentitle the member of the family of such deceased employee to employment on compassionate ground. 13. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that on the death of petitioner husband, she was granted family pension at about Rs. 1100/- per month. It is that the respondents have stated that apart from the said family pension petitioner was also earning Rs. 1500/- per month. However, there is absolute material in support of any such claim. Neverthless the fact remains that 0 death of the employee - the husband of the petitioner, family pension was granted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1, 100/- per month. Obviously, it exceeded amount of Rs.500/- which could disentitle the family member of the deceased employee to claim employment on compassionate ground. 14. Neverthless the fact remains that 0 death of the employee - the husband of the petitioner, family pension was granted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1, 100/- per month. Obviously, it exceeded amount of Rs.500/- which could disentitle the family member of the deceased employee to claim employment on compassionate ground. 14. As regards the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the G.R. 31st December, 2002 nowhere makes reference to any such bar that e prevent the member of the family of the deceased employee from getting benefit on compassionate ground on account of family pension being drawn the member of the deceased employee and, therefore, the same cannot be ground to deny the employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondents, the said specifically provides that it would apply to the cases arising after 1st Jan sides, it specifically provides that the decisions taken prior to that should . re-opened on the basis of G.R. dated 31st December, 2002. In any case, as laid down by the Apex Court clearly states that before entertaining the on for employment on compassionate ground, the concerned authority ascertain the financial position of the applicant or family of the deceased and only being satisfied that unless some source of livelihood is provided to the , it would not survive and, that therefore, the claimant needs to be given an opportunity to join the services on compassionate ground, that the employment , passionate ground can be offered. The G.R. dated 31st December, 200 override the decision of the Apex Court. 15. It is true that under letter dated 12th March, 1999 the Deputy Director had opined that as per the G.R., the petitioner ought to have been offered payment on compassionate ground and it is obligatory to do so for the dent No.3. The fact remains that there was no provision of law under the Deputy Director could have issued any such direction to the dent No. 3 to employ the petitioner on compassionate ground. The fact remains that there was no provision of law under the Deputy Director could have issued any such direction to the dent No. 3 to employ the petitioner on compassionate ground. Neither it matter of right for the petitioner nor the materials on record disclosed that Was an occasion for the respondent No.3 to get satisfied about the absolute of employment to the petitioner on account of death of her husband and that absence of such employment, the petitioner would not be able to make the ends meet. In the absence of any statutory power to the concerned authority to give any direction for employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, mere expression of their opinion about the alleged obligation of the respondent No.3 cannot be binding upon respondent No.3 nor petitioner can be allowed to contend that it was obligatory for the respondent to comply with the opinion expressed by the concerned authority in the dated 12th March, 1999. 16. The clause (3) of letter dated 12th April, 1982, to which attention was while contending that authorities have some statutory powers in relation to payment on compassionate ground. Plain reading of clause (11) of the said "would disclose that it merely assures that government offices would make, efforts to provide employment on compassionate ground in case where it as to be granted. It does not mean that the authorities have been given any statutory power as such. Besides, clause (3) is comprised under letter dated 12th 1982, addressed by the Director of Education. It does not form part of any Government Resolution as such nor of any statutory provision. No executive fiat override the law laid down by the Apex Court or the High Court. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court on the point in issue, all the arguments raised on the basis of the clause (11) of the said letter can be of notice to the petitioner. 17. As regards the decision of the Apex Court in Balbir Kaurs case, to be relied upon by the petitioner, specific attention was drawn to para 13 wherein the Apex Court had observed that, "In our view this Family t Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk by some lump-sum amount being made available family and this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The sudden jerk by some lump-sum amount being made available family and this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity there 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 solance the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." These observations with reference to the contentions sought to be raised by the advocate appellant for the respondents-company therein to the effect that "adaptation of this F Benefit Scheme was meant to provide and assured or regular income per m while the bulk amount deposited by way of provident fund and gratuity with the management remained intact, and consequently on deposits as above wit management, the employees family could avail of pay up to normal date of superannuation on the footing that the employee though not actually working notionally continued to work till the normal date of superannuation and such scheme in fact stands at a much better footing and much more beneficial employee or a deceased employee." Apparently the observations were in to different facts and situation. Besides, the decisions in Umesh Kumar Nag case and Ashwin Kumar Taneja s case were directly on the issue relation employment on compassionate ground. Being so, rulings in Balbir Kaurs are of no help to the petitioner to claim benefit of employment on compassion ground. 18. Before parting with the matter it is to be clarified that since petitioner was accommodated by way of interim order and, accordingly shall already rendered service all this time and was accordingly paid with the s there should not be any action for recovery any amount already paid to Needless to say that payment, if any, made to respondent No.5 consequent appointment, it shall be entirely responsibility of the respondent No.3. H said so and considering the fact that the petitioner was employed by respondents pursuant to the interim order, the respondent No.3 before takin action in relation to the employment of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 ascertain availability of the vacancies and if possible may accommodate petitioner in such vacancy taking into consideration the peculiar facts circumstances of the case within a period of twelve weeks from today and till time to maintain status quo. The authorities also in that regard may con whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner as Respondent No. 5 can be accommodated in the employment bearing in min requirement of institution and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the We make it clear that those directions are being issued in the peculiar fact circumstances of the case and should not be construed as precedent for any case. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged no order as to costs . Petition dismissed