JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 464 of 2005, has filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.3.1999 and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim regarding compassionate appointment. 2. Heard Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Rajeshwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the record. 3. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Late Ram Dayal, who died in harness on 19.5.1996 while working as Civil Mazdoor under the Commanding Officer, 264 Company, A.S.C. Supply Depot, Allahabad. However, he made representation on 19.9.1996 to the Quarter Master Generals Branch, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi for compassionate appointment, which was considered and rejected vide order dated 31.3.1999 on following grounds : "Please refer to Allahabad High Court order dated 17.1.1999 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39741 of 1998. 2. Your case has been examined in reference to the above Court order. After due circumspection of the case it has been certified that your request cannot be acceded to due to the following reasons : (a) You are the only dependant of Late Mazdoor Ram Dayal. There are no other liabilities like education of children, marriage of daughters etc. of the deceased Government Servant. (b) You have got terminal benefits of about Rupees One Lakh. You are also in receipt of family pension and allowance at the existing rates. (c) You are grown up (being 21 years old), married and are maintaining your family. (d) The above mentioned facts do not indicate any factor of indigent condition of the family of the deceased. (e) Considering the large number of pending cases of compassionate employment with large families and larger liabilities your case does not deserve any merit. Moreover, employment assistance does not mean employment consideration and the very concept of it is to provide immediate financial help to the bereaved family of the deceased Government Servant, who was the sole bread earner. 3. In view of the above, the undersigned, who is the competent authority, hereby reject your case." 4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner initially filed Civil Misc. 3. In view of the above, the undersigned, who is the competent authority, hereby reject your case." 4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner initially filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39149 of 1999 before this Court, which was dismissed on the ground that he must have to approach the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed with the observation that the respondents have already considered the matter and it was not found that the family is in indigent condition warranting any judicial intervention by the Tribunal. It has further been held that for such a long time the petitioner has already maintained himself, therefore, now he cannot be said to fulfil the requirement warranting compassionate appointment. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly dealt with his matter. We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that, admittedly, his case was considered by the authority and it was found that the petitioner after the death of his father married himself and is maintaining his family. Further, where a large number of other cases are pending deserving compassionate appointment, persons, having lesser necessity, cannot be allowed to give compassionate appointment. 6. It is well settled legal position that the idea and object of giving compassionate appointment is to mitigate immediate hardship, which has been caused to the deceased family on account of sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the family and thus, the time is an important factor. If compassionate appointment is allowed after a 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/her 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 birds eye view on some of such authorities of Apex Court. 7. 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. 7. 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." 8. 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............ 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 deceaseds family.......... The consideration for such employment is not a vested right.............. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis." 9. 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. 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. 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 crises resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left the 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 sufficient 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. 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 these grounds are no more in existence, therefore, the employment cannot be claimed or provided. 14. In Union Bank of India and others v. M.T. Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350 the Honble Apex Court held that when an employee dies a dependant of such an employee may seek appointment on compassionate ground only in accordance with the scheme or rules framed by the said authorities. The dependant does not automatically become entitled to get employment. The right that accrues to such dependant is right to get preferential treatment against the general principle of appointment, subject to the discretion of the employer, which is to be exercised in accordance with such scheme or rules. Mere possession of relevant qualification does not create any vested right to the applicant to get appointment on compassionate ground. The Court also held that whether a person is fit to get appointment on compassionate basis considering over all circumstances including financial assistance, he is to be best judged by the concerned authority in accordance with the rules or regulations and not by the Court unless it is shown that the decision is patently arbitrary and perverse. In para 37 the Honble Apex Court held : "37. It is also settled law that the specifically constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the appointing and selecting authorities. The Bank had considered the application of the respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment. After that even though the Bank found the respondent ineligible for appointment to its service, the High Court has found him eligible and has ordered his appointment. This is against the law laid down by this Court. The Bank had considered the application of the respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment. After that even though the Bank found the respondent ineligible for appointment to its service, the High Court has found him eligible and has ordered his appointment. This is against the law laid down by this Court. It is settled law that the principles regarding compassionate appointment that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family. The respondent is not entitled to claim relief under the new Scheme because the financial status of the family is much above the criterion fixed in the new Scheme." 15. In National Institute of Technology and others v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 the Honble Apex Court quoted with approval a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. D. Gopaiah, (2002) 93 FLR 12 (AP)(FB) wherein it was observed "by reason of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, great hopes and aspirations were generated in the minds of the people of India that employment shall not be given on descent". 16. In State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, JT 2007 (3) SC 35 the Honble Apex Court in para 27 observed as under : "Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made." 17. In Food Corporation of India and another v. Ram Kesh Yadav and another, JT 2007 (4) SC 1 it was held that the employer cannot be directed to act contrary to the terms of its policy governing compassionate appointment nor can the compassionate appointment be directed de hors the policy. 18. In State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 reiterating the above exposition of law the Honble Apex Court in para 10 held as under : "......... In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. 18. In State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh, (2007) 4 SCC 778 reiterating the above exposition of law the Honble Apex Court in para 10 held as under : "......... In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instruction as the case may be." 19. In view of the above, it is evident that if the scheme of compassionate appointment propounded by the respondents provided a limited number of vacancies for compassionate appointment and that too are to be allowed to those persons, who are most deserving namely, living in penury and having virtually no financial assistance. It cannot be said that the terms of the scheme ought to have been altered or can be challenged by the person, who contend that he should be considered for compassionate appointment by ignoring or relaxing some part of the scheme, which does not suit to him. 20. In the case in hand, we have already quoted the order passed by the authorities. It is evident that the case of the petitioner has been considered by due application of mind and the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any perversity therein. 21. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————