Judgment :- The petitioner has stated that his father had died, on 8. 1980, while in service. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his brother, Dhanasekaran, was working as a watchman in the Government Department. 2. It has been further stated that the Government had issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993, to enable the Government to appoint a family member of the deceased Government servant, taking into consideration the indigent circumstances of the family, even if another member of the family has been employed. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Salem. By the proceedings, dated 8. 1994, the petitioner was directed to submit certain documents to establish that his claim can be considered, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993. Even though the petitioner had submitted all the necessary documents, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Salem, the second respondent herein, had rejected the request of the petitioner by his order, dated 211. 1994. Based on the same ground, the Director of Agriculture, the first respondent herein, had passed an order on 11. 1995, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the Government Letter, dated 27. 1994, clarifying that the cases, which have been already rejected prior to the issuance of the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993, need not be reopened. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O.A.No.4908 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.22864 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the father of the petitioner, Vadivel Nainar, who was working as a Field Demonstration Officer in Veerapandi Block, had died, on 8. 1980. The request for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the petitioners elder brother was working as a watchman in the Government Headquarters Hospital in Salem. However, a Government Order came to be issued in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1980. The request for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the petitioners elder brother was working as a watchman in the Government Headquarters Hospital in Salem. However, a Government Order came to be issued in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993, which states that when a dependent of the family is employed the factors to be ascertained are whether he is regularly employed and if he is actually supporting the family. If the person was employed even before the death of the Government servant and was living separately, without extending any help to the family of the deceased Government servant, then the cases of the other eligible dependents could be considered. However, the Government had issued a letter of clarification in Govt. Lr.No.57630/Q1/93-2, dated 27. 1994, of the Labour and Employment Department, clarifying that the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993, would be applicable only from the date of the said Government Order, which is 17. 1993 and the past cases need not be reopened. Therefore, the request of the petitioner was rejected based on the said letter as it had arisen before the issuance of the Government Order, on 17. 1993. 4. It has been further stated that since the request of the petitioner had been rejected as early as 1981, issuance of the Government Order, on 17. 1993, cannot give the right to the petitioner to revive his request, nearly 12 years thereafter, based on the said Government Order. If the request for appointment on compassionate grounds made by the petitioner is entertained after a lapse of 17 years from the date of the death of the petitioners father, it would defeat the purpose of the scheme which is to help the family of the deceased Government servant when it is in indigent circumstances. Therefore, there is no merit or substance in the claims made by the petitioner. 5. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointments on compassionate grounds. 1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Therefore, there is no merit or substance in the claims made by the petitioner. 5. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointments on compassionate grounds. 1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh ( 2007 (4) SCC 778 ), the Supreme Court had held that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner, providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees who had died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. 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 a scheme or instructions, as the case may be. 5. 2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi ( 2007(6) SCC 162 ), the Supreme Court had held that compassionate appointment must be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. 3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs. M.T. Latheesh ( 2006(7) SCC 350 ), the Supreme Court had held that grant of employment on compassionate grounds in all cases, would shut the door for employment to the increasing number of unemployed youth. 5. 4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd., and others ( 2007(8) SCC 549 ), the Supreme Court had recognized the fact that appointment on compassionate grounds are an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 5. 5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur ( 2007(9) SCC 571 ), the Supreme Court had held that a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. The appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment is at the discretion of the authority concerned. 5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur ( 2007(9) SCC 571 ), the Supreme Court had held that a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. The appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment is at the discretion of the authority concerned. The discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the scheme and the object and the rationale behind it. However, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. 6. "In H. Anwar Basha Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court ( 2008 (3) CTC 785 ), a Division Bench of this Court had held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family of the Government servant who had died in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions rendered by the Courts of law and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be entertained by the respondents after nearly 17 years from the death of the petitioners father, who had died in harness, on 8. 1980, while in service. The purpose for which such appointments are made by relaxing the rules applicable to the regular process of recruitment would be defeated if the request of the petitioner is entertained after the lapse of many years. The scheme for compassionate appointment has been formulated to help the family of the deceased Government servant to tide over the crisis arising due to the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family. If the members of the family are found to be in indigent circumstances one of the members of the family of the deceased Government servant would be given an appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with the norms prescribed in that regard. However, such appointments can be made only in accordance with the rules framed for the said purpose and in accordance with the Government orders applicable to such appointments. Even though the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. However, such appointments can be made only in accordance with the rules framed for the said purpose and in accordance with the Government orders applicable to such appointments. Even though the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993, wherein it has been stated that a member of the family of the deceased Government servant could be given employment on compassionate grounds, even when another member of the family is employed when such appointment of the employed member had taken place before the death of the Government servant and if such employee member is not supporting the family of the deceased Government servant, by residing separately, without rendering any help to the family. However, by a Government letter, dated 27. 1994, it has been clarified that past cases need not be reopened as the said Government order would be applicable only from the date on which it was issued. 7. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not in a position to show sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is clear that the appointments on compassionate grounds are made only to help the family in distress due to the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family, and if the members of the family are found to be in indigent circumstances. Such appointments are made to help the family to tide over the immediate crisis arising due to the death of an earning member of the family. It cannot be considered as an avenue for employment in the normal course. In view of the decisions rendered by the various courts of law, the belated request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds does not deserve serious consideration, at this late stage. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.