Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.A.No.32 of 2004, where under the Tribunal has rejected the Original Application filed by the present petitioner seeking for a direction to the Department to appoint her on compassionate ground on the death of her husband, who died in harness. 3. The husband of the petitioner died on 19. 1993. Soon thereafter, the present petitioner made a representation dated 5.10,1993 to Respondent No.3, wherein she requested that all the benefits and concessions may be given, but there was no specific request for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of compassionate ground. Be that as it may, subsequently, the petitioner filed an application dated 26. 2000 for appointment. It appears that such application was rejected on 24. 2001. Even at that stage the petitioner instead of filing Original Application against such rejection order had filed a fresh application on 26. 2001, which was rejected on 4. 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner again made a representation dated 8. 2003, which was rejected on 28. 2003. Thereafter, the Original Application No.32 of 2004 had been filed challenging the legality of the order dated 28. 2003. 4. The Tribunal rejected such application inter alia on the ground of laches and limitation. Moreover, the Tribunal had placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 SCC L&S 1111 (UNION OF INDIA v. JOGINDER SHARMA) while rejecting the Application. 5. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner had filed the first application in October, 1993 and subsequently filed other applications, the O.A. should not have been rejected on the ground of laches and limitation. It has been further submitted that since a civil suit was pending, the petitioner had no opportunity to file the application earlier. 6. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that compassionate appointment of a person on the basis of the death of an employee should not be considered as a new source of recruitment and such employment is given only to overcome the immediate financial stringency on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family. 6. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that compassionate appointment of a person on the basis of the death of an employee should not be considered as a new source of recruitment and such employment is given only to overcome the immediate financial stringency on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family. In the present case, the death had occurred in the year 1993. The first rejection order was passed on 24. 2001. Such order was never challenged and thereafter the matter was again raked up by the petitioner by filing repeated representations. 7. Under such circumstances, we hardly see any scope to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, which is based on discussion of relevant materials on record as well as law on the point. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.