ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE facts are as follows: the father of the petitioner was employed as a driver with the respondents. He had suffered a paralytic stroke, while on duty, in the year 1993. In September 1993 he was discharged from hospital and was advised to do light work. The petitioner's father had accordingly sought for alternative duty with the respondents as per representation dated 22. 8. 1994. In the meanwhile the respondents had called upon the petitioner's father to join duty at the earliest. The request to assign light duties was reiterated. The respondents refused to assign light duties and on the other hand advised taking voluntary retirement ( 2 ) IN April 1996 the petitioner's father was called upon to appear for a medical examination and it was certified that he was not fit for carrying on the work of a driver. The petitioner's father was compulsorily retired by an order dated 3. 5. 1996. ( 3 ) THE above action of the respondents was challenged by way of a writ petition in W. P. No. 3001/1997 before this Court. It was contended that the action was repugnant to the settlement arrived at under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, dated 28. 4. 1979. In terms of the settlement, an employee who becomes physically disabled, while in service, was to be allotted light duties if he was not capable of performing regular duties, either in the same cadre or in a lower post. However, the workman died during the pendency of the petition. The legal representatives came on record, seeking an alternative relief of appointment on compassionate grounds. The petition was disposed of on 9. 10. 1997 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner had made yet another representation. This was however, rejected by an endorsement dated 8. 8. 2001. It is in this background that the present writ petition is filed. The petition was disposed of on 9. 10. 1997 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner had made yet another representation. This was however, rejected by an endorsement dated 8. 8. 2001. It is in this background that the present writ petition is filed. ( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the C and R Regulations of the respondents - the petitioner's father having become disabled during the course of his employment was protected under Section 47 read with Section 2 (t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (1995) and relies on the case of kumar Singh v. Union of India AIR2003 SC 1623 , [2003 (96 )FLR990 ], 2003 (1 )JKJ674 [sc ], JT2003 (2 )SC 132 , 2003 (3 )KLT61 (SC ), (2003 )II llj735 SC , 2003 (2 )SCALE78 , (2003 )4 SCC524 , [2003 ]1 SCR1059 , 2003 (2 )SLJ365 (SC ), 2003 (1 )UJ733 (SC ), (2003 )1 UPLBEC917. He further contends that the respondent has acted in breach of a settlement under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner's father having become disabled for the respondents were required to re-categorize him to an equivalent post and assign light duties. In any event the workman having died during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the action - his death ought to be treated as being whilst in service and therefore the petitioner, as his legal heir, ought to be provided employment on compassionate grounds as the petitioner's father is the sole bread earner of the family. ( 6 ) PER contra the counsel for the respondents contends that the settlement under the Industrial dispute Act, nor the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the respondents could be pressed into service as the workman had not become disabled as a result of any accident or injury arising during the course of employment to claim re-categorization and the workman having been compulsorily retired in accordance with the regulations there was no scope for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. ( 7 ) RELIANCE is placed on several authorities: Gayathri v. Managing Director, KSRTC [1995 (70 )FLR661 ], ILR1994 KAR 3752 , 1995 (2 )Karlj335 , (1995 )II LLJ1148 Kant wherein it is held that a scheme formulated by the respondent to provide alternative employment to workman who become disabled in the course of employment would not apply to workmen, who, on account of health reasons, are required to be retired from services. Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja 2004-III-LLJ 536 - which is to the effect that where the family of a deceased workman had received substantial retiral benefits, there was no scope for providing employment on compassionate grounds. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1994 (68 ) FLR1191 ], JT1994 (3 )SC 525 , 1994 (2 )SCALE834 , (1994 )4 SCC138 , [1994 ]3 SCR893 , 1995 (1 )SLJ229 (SC ), 1994 (2 )UJ322 (SC ), (1994 )2 UPLBEC1307 : To the effect that compassionate appointment is made to enable a family of the deceased employee to come out of a state of penury and not to provide employment. And that grant of such appointment alter a considerable lapse of time, is not permissible. ( 8 ) ON these rival contentions, even if the contentions of the petitioner could be accepted, the fact that by sheer efflux of time, the object of providing employment to the legal representative of deceased employee not being present and as held by the Supreme Court in a more recent judgment in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mir AIR2006 SC 2743 , JT2006 (6 )SC 387 , (2006 )4 MLJ605 (SC ), rlw2007 (1 )SC 73 , 2006 (7 )SCALE136 , (2006 )5 SCC766 , 2007 (1 )SLJ219 (SC ) that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, employment in the government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the constitution. This general rule ought not to be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner and livelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the constitution. This general rule ought not to be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole bread winner and livelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is shown that in spite of the death of the bread winner, the family survived and a reasonable time has elapsed, it would be violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India to show favour to any such claimant at the cost of the interests of several others who are in equally dire need of employment for their livelihood. ( 9 ) HENCE in my opinion the petitioner is no longer entitled to claim employment on compassionate grounds and accordingly the petition is dismissed.