Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. .2. The petitioner has stated that his father Boopathi, who was employed as a Gang Mazdoor in the National Highways Section at Gummidipoondi, had died while in service, on 5. 81. The petitioner was seven years old at the time when his father had died in harness, leaving behind the petitioners mother Govindammal and his two young sisters, Sasikala and Vaijayanthimala. Having completed his 10th standard in the month of April 1992, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 7. 95. On receipt of the petitioners application, the third respondent had forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer National Highways and Rural Works Department, Chennai, the second respondent herein. Thereafter, the second respondent had sent the proposal to the Deputy Secretary to Government, National Highways, Chennai, along with the petitioners application and the other relevant documents, for obtaining necessary orders. However, the Deputy Secretary to Government, National Highways, Chennai, the first respondent herein, by an order, dated 210. 99, had rejected the request of the petitioner, stating that the application had been made by the petitioner after 17 years from the death of his father, who had died, on 5. 81, in harness. The first respondent had quoted G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26. 95, which states that an application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the death of the government servant. However, on a perusal of the said Government order, it is clear that it is applicable only with regard to government servants, who had died on or after 26. 95. A Government letter in Letter No.39924/01-95-1, dated 110. 95, states that the time limit of three years, specified in the Government Order, is applicable only to the dependants of the government servants, who had died while in government service, on or after 26. 95 and that the said order is not applicable to past cases. In such circumstances, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, by the first and third respondents, are arbitrary, illegal and void. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of his father, on 5. In such circumstances, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, by the first and third respondents, are arbitrary, illegal and void. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of his father, on 5. 81, as he was only seven years old at that time. Therefore, he had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, on 7. 95, after having completed his 10th standard. As there is no time limit for an application to be made for appointment on compassionate grounds, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 210. 99 and that of the third respondent, dated 31. 2000, are arbitrary and illegal. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26. 95, does not apply to the petitioner as it is applicable only in respect of the Government servants who had died in harness, on or after 26. 95. Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, quoting G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26. 95, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. .4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the proposal for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, made after 17 years from the date of the death of his father, cannot be entertained. The purpose behind such appointments is to help the family of the deceased government servant to tide over the financial difficulties, of the family, which is in indigent circumstances. Therefore, such appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially, after the lapse of a long number of years after the death of the Government servant concerned. Therefore, the impugned orders of the first and third respondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner, is in accordance with law and in tune with the decisions of the Supreme Court. 5. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointment on compassionate grounds: 5. 1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Therefore, the impugned orders of the first and third respondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner, is in accordance with law and in tune with the decisions of the Supreme Court. 5. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointment on compassionate grounds: 5. 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 recognised 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. 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. 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 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad and others Vs. Sarvarunnisa Begum ( 2008 (3) SCC 402 ) the Supreme Court, quoting with approval the decision made in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana ( 1994 (4) SCC 138 ), had held that it has been time and again held that compassionate appointments would be given to the dependants of the deceased who had died in harness, to get over the difficulties on the death of the bread earner and that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. 7. "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. From the various decisions of the Courts of law, it is clear that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such appointments are made to provide succour to the family of the government servant, who had died in harness, if such family is found to be in indigent circumstances. However, such appointments are to be made only in accordance with the Rules, Schemes and the Government Orders applicable to such appointments. 7. On analyzing the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the first and third respondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the petitioner had died in harness, on 5. The father of the petitioner had died in harness, on 5. 81, and the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds only on 7. 95 and it had been rejected by an order of the first respondent, on 210. 99, stating that the proposal for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds had been submitted after a lapse of 17 years. 8. In such circumstances, there is no substance or merit in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, there is no cause or reason for this Court to set aside the impugned orders of the first and third respondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner for such appointment. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs.