Judgment 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 13th November, 2007 passed by Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as "Tribunal") in O.A. No. 627 of 2005. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband in harness on 4.9.1999 was wrongly rejected even though her husband was working as a casual worker, who had got the temporary status. It is further submitted that the factum of conferring temporary status would be evident from Annexure-2 to this application, which is a letter of DRM/P Samastipur addressed to General Manager(P), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 4. On the basis of the applications filed by the writ petitioner in the Tribunal the Railway authorities appeared and filed written statement categorically denying the factum of grant of temporary status to her husband. 5. The Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal on the basis of the submissions of the parties and materials on record held that the husband of the petitioner, who died-in-harness, was never granted temporary status. He further held that Annexure-2, referred to above, does not support the factum that temporary, status was ever granted by the authorities to the husband of the petitioner, and therefore, he held that the prayer of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in view of the Circular of the Railway Board. 6. It appears from the materials on record that Railway Boards letter No. E(NG)11/84 CL/28 dated 4.5.1984 and 31.12.1986 is the Circular on the question of appointment on compassionate ground, which contemplates that the person dying-in-harness having temporary status would entitle the dependents for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Since no documentary proof was placed before the Tribunal in support of the contention, the Tribunal was wholly justified in dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioner. Here also before this Court, the petitioner has not established her claim based on documents. Mere reference of Annexure-2 to the writ application, in our opinion, it does not confer any right on the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the order impugned. 9. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.