JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Mr. Sajnu Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Govind Saran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Railway and also perused the record. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 31.7.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short the Tribunal) dismissing Original Application No. 419 of 2004 (Smt. Lalita and another v. Union of India and another) whereby the petitioners have sought for mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 2. 3. It is not disputed that Late Lilit Kumar Singh was the employee of the Railway Department and died on 12th October, 1989. At that time petitioner No. 2 was minor, who claims to be the adopted son of petitioner No. 1 (deceased employee). Petitioner No. 2 has disclosed his age 28 years in the affidavit, he must have attained majority in the year 1998. It is not the case of petitioner No. 1 that she had ever made any application claiming compassionate appointment for herself. It is on the contrary admitted that she requested the authority concerned to provide compassionate appointment to her son, who is petitioner No. 2, which could not have been granted prior to 1998, since he was minor. Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that petitioner No. 2 could attain the age of majority in the year 1998 and after such a long lapse of time compassionate appointment could not have been given. Moreover after 18 years of the death of the husband of petitioner No. 1, the request to provide compassionate appointment cannot be considered. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that though the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner by disbelieving the theory of adoption of petitioner No. 2, without entering into that controversy, even otherwise, the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment should not be considered after such a long time and has rightly been rejected by the respondents. The moot point, which we have considered in this case is whether after more than a decade a person can claim compassionate appointment and whether such request can be considered only on the ground that earlier the child or children being minor could not have been considered for compassionate appointment but after attaining the majority they are entitled to be considered for such appointment. 5. 5. The purpose and objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family whose sole bread earner has died in harness. It is not a source of recruitment. It only enables the family to tide over the sudden crisis and not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. It is not a kind of right of succession in the service when the employee has died in harness. The compassionate appointment has always been considered to be an exception to the Rules made in favour of the family of the deceased employee in consideration of services rendered by him and legitimate expectations, change in status and affairs of the family endangered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. It cannot be allowed as a matter of course. There is no question of reserving a vacancy for the Dependents of deceased employee so as to provide them as and when they claim the same after acquiring requisite qualification, age etc. If compassionate appointment is allowed after reasonably long time, it would defeat the very object of assisting the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to the death of bread earner, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The matter has been considered by the Apex Court as well as this Court time and again and it would be useful to have a bird’s eye view on some of such authorities of Apex Court. 6. In the case of Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 , the Apex Court while considering the object of granting appointment observed as under : “The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.” 7. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (4) SCC 138 , the Apex Court reiterating the said purpose further explained nature of right of legal heirs qua employment, as under : “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (4) SCC 138 , the Apex Court reiterating the said purpose further explained nature of right of legal heirs qua employment, as under : “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family...............The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned............ Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased...........The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course.......................The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased’s family.......... The consideration for such employment is not a vested right.............. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis.” 8. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right.............. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis.” 8. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332, the Apex Court cautioned that the object of providing compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship. Therefore, an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening of alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 9. Again in Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, 1998 (5) SCC 192 , the Apex Court observed as under : “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both the ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee.” (emphasis added) 10. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (10) SC 156, the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment is provided only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left family in penury without any means of livelihood but it cannot be treated to be a reserved vacancy for the dependants of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. 11. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, 2002 LLJ 773 , the Apex Court while reiterating the objective of compassionate appointment as laid down in the earlier cases further observed that the application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 12. If the family has sufficient means to survive for years together and can take care of the minors who have turned into major after undergoing educational qualification etc. that itself would be evident to show that now the family is not in financial crisis as it could have at the time of sudden demise of the deceased necessitating compassionate appointment at a late stage i.e. after several years. 13. In State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin, 2003 (7) SCC 511 , the Apex Court reiterated that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is only to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death in service, only to alleviate the distress of the family but at a belated stage as the rounds are no more in existence, therefore, the employment cannot be claimed or provided. 14. Thus, in view of catena of decisions in the matter of compassionate appointment, some of which have been discussed and referred above, it is clear that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a ‘vested right’. The term ‘vested right’ has been considered and described by the Apex Court in the case of Mosammat Bibi Sayeeda and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 SC 1936 wherein after referring to dictionary meaning in various dictionary, the Apex Court has observed as under : “Rights are vested when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest.” 15. Thus, the vested right may arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. However, asking for compassionate appointment after attaining the majority by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a vested right. 16. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that unemployment is a major problem in our country. Lacs and millions educated unemployed persons are wandering for employment and even for a single petty Class IV vacancy, hundreds and thousands applied which includes not only those who possesses the minimum qualification of secondary levels or less but even graduate and post-graduate. At times it has been seen that even persons having doctorate have applied for the lowest class of service i.e. Class IV. In such a situation, public employment must be available to eligible and suitable persons to be filled in by competition and all who are willing should be given an opportunity of consideration. Asking for a vacancy to be kept reserve so as to be filled-in future on the basis of notional extended distress to the family continuing for years together would amount to denial of such right of consideration to other similarly placed unemployed and destitute persons whose only faults is that their ancestors could not get the opportunity of employment and, therefore, they should also suffer the same misfortune. Compassionate appointment in fact has an element of an immediate help to the family of the deceased employee. The heirs in distress lacking sufficient and reasonable means to survive with some honour must request for such help immediately or within a reasonable time. To some extent, no doubt, it is a condition of service and the benefit available to employee in general but extension of such conditions of service to an unreasonable extent would or may erode the difference between valid and invalid and any such stretch may render the provisions of the compassionate appointment to be judged on the anvil of Article 16 of the Constitution of India which confers right of equal opportunity in public employment to all persons. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that still majority of people are continuing to be tiny, poor starving little Indians and still are below poverty line. Their distress and penury appears to be everlasting, as if they are bound to live in distress permanently. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that still majority of people are continuing to be tiny, poor starving little Indians and still are below poverty line. Their distress and penury appears to be everlasting, as if they are bound to live in distress permanently. Their misery and destitute is not the result of sudden demise of the sole bread-earner but is caused by their fate and for the reason of non-availability of employment. They are not in a position, even though they are alive, to earn two times simple bread what to talk of bread and butter. The distress of such persons is neither negligible nor can be ignored. In the pragmatic society, efforts had to be made to read and apply law wherever permissible which will extend an opportunity of equal consideration for public employment to public at large irrespective of their lineage, ancestral hierarchy etc. 17. In State of Jammu & Kashmir and others v. Sajjad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743 similar facts were involved and considering the same, the Apex Court held that when the deceased employee died in 1987 and his son approached the authorities in 1999, i.e., more than a decade, the same itself disentitles him to claim any benefit of compassionate appointment and observed that the view taken by the High Court in favour of the dependant of the deceased employee amounts to misplaced sympathy. It reiterated the objective of compassionate appointment as under : “We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought ‘compassion’, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in 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. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 18. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the claim for compassionate appointment after a long time would be contrary to the very basis purpose and objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment and cannot be considered at all. We do not find any fault in the judgment of the learned Tribunal dismissing the Original Application of the petitioners. 19. The writ petition, accordingly, lacks merit and is dismissed. ————