N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant case, the petitioners are questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 21 - 2 - 2007 bearing Memo no. R. and E/2 - 5/47/02 passed by the Assistant Postmaster General (S), the 2nd respondent herein. They have further sought for a direction directing the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioners as per Annexure - F for appointment of the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds to a post for which he is qualified to hold in the Department of Posts on account of the death of the father of the 2nd Petitioner and husband of the 1 st petitioner. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners herein had filed a Writ petition earlier in WP No. 17877/2004 (8 ). The said matter has come up for consideration on 10 - 11 - 2006 and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners herein was allowed in part. The impugned endorsement dated 19 - 3 - 2004 was set aside. The respondent 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioners with reference to the relevant Rules/officiai Memorandum governing the appointment on compassionate grounds of dependents of deceased Central government employees in accordance with law within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of that order. After disposal of the Writ petition, the matter lias been reconsidered by the 2nd respondent and after following the guidelines reiterated to consider cases for appointment under compassionate grounds vide DOPT OM No. 14014/6/94/estt (D) dated 9 - 10 - 1998, the application filed by the 2nd petitioner for appointment under compassionate grounds has been rejected. Being aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 21 - 2 - 2007 vide Annexure - A and seeking appropriate relief as stated above, the petitioners have filed the instant writ Petition. ( 3 ) I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners at considerable length of time. Being aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 21 - 2 - 2007 vide Annexure - A and seeking appropriate relief as stated above, the petitioners have filed the instant writ Petition. ( 3 ) I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners at considerable length of time. ( 4 ) AFTER careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, it is manifest on the face of the order that, the 2nd respondent has not committed any error of law or any material irregularity in rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the father of the 2nd petitioner and husband of the 1 st petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is significant to note that the 2nd respondent has placed reliance on the guidelines issued by the competent authority vide DOPT om No. 14014/6/94/estt (D) dated 9 - 10 - 1998 which reads thus: "the object of the scheme is to provide appointment to a dependant family member dying in harness leaving his family in penury without any means of livelihood. The person to be appointed under the scheme -should have the minimum educational and technical qualifications. Whilc considering the case for appointment on compassionate grounds, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family. The whole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises and to relieve the family of the financial disturbance, and help to get over the emergency" ( 6 ) IN the light of the guidelines issued by the competent authority, for considering the application filed by the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the father of the 2nd petitioner and husband of the 1 st petitioner, the matter has been placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee. The committee in turn, re - examined the case of the petitioner again on 12-2-2007 and opined that the deceased Sri K. Satish expired on completion of 53 years of age and 32 years of service by which time he had two sons, aged 22 and 19 years and wife aged 52 years. The family owns a house worth Rs. 3 lakhs. Smt. Ravikala, wife of late Sri k. Satish has been receiving a family pension of Rs. 2,9507 - +deamess relief as admissible from time to time and the terminal benefits were received by the family of the deceased Sri K. Satish such as DCRG, leave encashment, GPF, PLI/lic, CGEGIS, Welfare, Society and kdrf in a total sum of Rs. 4,00,221 / -. Taking into consideration all these relevant factors, the Committee has opined that there was no liability to the family such as bringing up of minor children or marriage of daughters etc. , The family is staying in own house. As such, no expenditure is incurred towards rent. Thus the family is in a relatively better position compared to many other applicants seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Thus the family is in less indigent circumstances. The committee reconsidering the case of the petitioners in the light of the directions issued by this Court has rightly rejected the case of the 2nd petitioner having regard to the guidelines issued by the competent authority. The 2nd petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. The whole object of the guidelines issued by the competent authority for providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the financial disturbance and help to get over the emergency. The committee has rightly taken into consideration regarding the balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family and taking into account its assets and liabilities including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family. Keeping in view, the case of the petitioners and in the light of the directions issued by this court, the Circle Relaxation Committee has rightly re - examined the case of the petitioners and rejected the request of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the competent authority. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons as stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.