Judgment K.C.Puri, J. 1. Smt. Raj Rani has preferred the present writ petition forquashing the order No. 562 dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure P-5) vide which her request for compassionate appointment was declined and allowed the ex-gratia compassionate amount to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs as per the revised policy. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Babu Lal was working as Safai Sewak on regular basis in Civil Maintenance Cell, Thermal Plant, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhatinda. He entered into service of the Board in the year 1975 and died while in service on 26.7.2001. The respondent-Board used to give employment to the heirs of the its employee who died while in service in accordance with Punjab Government letter dated 5.2.1996 and 8.8.1996. Subsequently, the Board issued another Policy dated 23.11.2004 and decided to discontinue to give compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee and in turn it was decided to pay lumpsum compensation/solatium to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs as per the provisions of the Policy and a benefit of special pension till the retirement date of the deceased employee. 3. It is pleaded that the petitioner has been recom mended for grant of benefit of solatium to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs and of special pension. The case of the petitioner is covered by the Policy dated 5.2.1996 and 8.8.1996 and not by the Policy dated 23.11.2004. The petitioner is entitled to compassionate e mployment in view of the Policy referred to above. 4. Notice of the petition was given to respondents, who had put in appearance and filed the written reply. The respondents have denied the contentions of the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the case of the petitioner was under consideration for compassionate appointment when statement was made that 1400 applications were pending for compassionate appointment in CWP No. 1678 of 2004 titled as Jagsir Singh vs. PSEB and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.3.2004. The Board in principle decided to discontinue with the policy of compassionate appointment to the wards/dependents of deceased Board employees and discontinued the earlier Policy since 4/2002. The petitioner has not challenged the vires of said instructions. The benefits under the new Policy dated 23.11.2004 were offered to the petitioner. The petitioner is already drawing pension and has obtained other service benefits of the deceased. The petitioner has not challenged the vires of said instructions. The benefits under the new Policy dated 23.11.2004 were offered to the petitioner. The petitioner is already drawing pension and has obtained other service benefits of the deceased. The Policy was framed keeping in view to help the family of the deceased Board employees to tied over the financial crisis which the family had to face due to sudden demise of the breadwinner. As per new Policy, the family of the deceased employee is entitled to lump sum compensation (solatium) minimum Rs. 3 lacs and maximum Rs. 5 lacs to calculated on the basis of basic pay of the deceased-employee; in case their claim for compassionate appointment is found admissible and in addition, a special pension equal to the last pay (basic) drawn along with dearness relief, sanctioned from time to time is also to be granted till the date of superannuation of deceased regular employees. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the record of the case. The underlying idea for granting compassionate employment anc compassionate financial assistance is to help the family of the deceased employee Compassionate employment is an exception to the general rule of direct recruitme- of public services on humanitarian grounds. The policy of ex- gratia employment has been framed on the assumption that compassionate appointment will enable the family to overcome the sudden crisis. From the careful reading of some of the eartie judicial precedents gave an impression that Courts have held that Government/Pub : employer is under duty to provide compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased. However, in the later decisions, it has been clarifies: that Policy of compassionate appointment does not create a vested right in the dependent of the deceased employee to be appointed in service and also that the application for ex- gratia employment is required to be decided strictly in accordance with the existing Policy. 6. In the authority reported as Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, 1994(4) RSJ 317, the Honble Apex Court has held that whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. It has been held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period. 7. 6. In the authority reported as Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, 1994(4) RSJ 317, the Honble Apex Court has held that whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. It has been held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period. 7. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner died on 26.7.2001 and she has been granted family pension. While scrutinizing the application for compassionate appointment, the backdrop of the financial status of the family needs to be kept in mind. No vested right accrued in favour of the heirs of the deceased employee to get appointment on compassionate ground. The financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs and a special pension equal to the last pay (basic) along with dearness relief sanctioned from time to time till the date of superannuation of the deceased employee, has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. So, in these circumstances, the petitioner and her family can survive. 8. In the authority reported as Mahipal vs. State of Haryana and others, 1999(2) RSJ 53, the Division Bench of our own High Court has held the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus of direct the employer to appoint the dependent after lapse of many years. 9. In the authority reported as Jai Ram vs. UHBVNL and others, 2005(3) RSJ 313, it has been held that where the family of deceased has received.pension in that case purpose of helping the family to tide over the emergent situation caused by the untimely death of the only breadwinner is achieved. Compassionate appointment can only be granted in an exceptional circumstances of extreme hardship. In that case, it has been held that if a family can survive for a period of almost three years, it is indicative of the fact that the family is not without resources and the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined. In the present case the family of the petitioner has survived for a period of more than six years and the petitioner has been granted family pension and has been offered Rs. 3 lacs in cash and other benefits. 10. In the present case the family of the petitioner has survived for a period of more than six years and the petitioner has been granted family pension and has been offered Rs. 3 lacs in cash and other benefits. 10. In the authority reported Amarjit Singh Dhingra vs. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RSJ 315, the Division Bench of our own High Court has held that in case any compassionate employment is allowed in that case, it will open a Pandora Box of litigation and all the persons who were denied such appointment would take recourse to similar litigation. These observations had been made by the Division Bench keeping in view the observations made in the Supreme Court ruling. According to the respondents, 1400 applications for the grant of compassionate employment were pending with the respondent-Board. The Board has also taken the stand that the financial position of the Board is not sound and no new employees are being recruited. So, in these circumstances, granting the relief of compassionate appointment would further worsen the financial condition of the respondent-Board. So, in view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.