JUDGMENT 1. 1. Late Rameshwar Lal Bunkar was employed as Postal Assistant. He died on 11th December, 1997 in harness. The petitioner made an application in the year 1999 for appointment on compassionate ground being widow of Rameshwar Lal Bunkar, which came to be dismissed on 14th February, 2001. One of her sons having attained majority, the petitioner again applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was not entertained and that compelled the petitioner to approach Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of her grievance. Initially she withdrew the Original Application with liberty to file fresh Original Application. The fresh Original Application came to be dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2005 giving rise to present writ petition. 2. By order dated 12th February, 2007, we directed the counsel for the petitioner to keep ready the Rules/Guidelines applicable for appointment on compassionate ground in the Postal Department. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to show us the relevant Guidelines/Scheme/Rules for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Be that as it may, the dismissal of Original Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be faulted for more than one reason. The husband of the petitioner died on 11.9.1997 and admittedly the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made for the first time in the year 1999 i.e. after two years of the death of her husband. The appointment on compassionate ground is a departure from the recruitment by way of regular process. It is intended to provide immediate, succor to the dependents of the deceased employee, who are not able to sustain and survive due to un-expected death of sole bread earner in the family. 4. That the application for compassionate appointment was made after two years of the death of her husband, would show that the petitioner was not in dire need of financial support. It is also not in dispute that the application made by the petitioner in the year 1999 for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2001. The petitioner felt satisfied by the said action of the respondents and did not challenge the same. She made a fresh application in the year 2003 for appointment of her son on 1 compassionate ground. Obviously, at that distance of time, it cannot be said that the petitioner's family needed appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner felt satisfied by the said action of the respondents and did not challenge the same. She made a fresh application in the year 2003 for appointment of her son on 1 compassionate ground. Obviously, at that distance of time, it cannot be said that the petitioner's family needed appointment on compassionate ground. Second and more importantly, the' petitioner has been getting monthly pension of Rs. 3,175/-. She has also got terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 3,31,000/-. 5. In the circumstances, rejection of petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground by the respondents cannot be faulted. 6. Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in Ming the Original Application. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******