JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. None appears for the appellant when the matter is taken up for hearing though the names of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been duly reflected on the board of the weekly hearing list commencing from 16.1.2007 to 19.1.2007. 2. Heard the learned Govt. Advocate representing the State of Tripura-respondents. 3. This writ appeal presented against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.C. No. 585/99 has been pending since 2000. 4. On meticulous perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the prayer of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme so floated by the State of Tripura due to the killing of his elder brother, an Assistant Teacher in Education Department, on 26.7.93 by the extremists while he was teaching in class room, was rejected by the impugned judgment holding that the petitioner was not entitled to get second employment under this scheme when one member in the family was already working on the date of death of the deceased in Government job and as such there could not be any financial crisis at the relevant time and the petitioner could not claim any appointment in view of the specific bar created in the scheme. 5. That being so, we are of the considered view that since admittedly the petitioner has been seeking appointment on compassionate ground when one of the member of his family was already in Government service, no relief as prayed for can be granted to him under the die-in-harness scheme being in force in the State of Tripura that bars such second appointment on compassionate ground. Besides, it is seen that the petitioner has filed in the instant writ petition in the year against the death of his elder brother on 26.7.1993 after a lapse of long seven years. 6. It is well settled law that the purpose of providing appointment, on compassionate ground is to mitigate the immediate hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided at in the earliest possibility to redeem the family in distress. Thus, in making such claim for appointment, there should not be any delay. 7. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided at in the earliest possibility to redeem the family in distress. Thus, in making such claim for appointment, there should not be any delay. 7. At this stage, the learned State Counsel representing the State has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2001 (3) GLR 202 Smt. Kabita Deb v. State of Tripura and Ors. wherein under similar circumstances, this Court refused the entitlement of the petitioner to compassionate appointment. 8. Having regard to the above cited case and also taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety as well as after going through the impugned judgment and order, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal warranting interference with the impugned judgment. 9. In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.