JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed to issue direction to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner as peon on compassionate ground under the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Petitioner's husband Late Bijaya Kumar Minz, who was working as Process Server in the office of District Judge, Sundargarh died on 16.9.1997 leaving behind his wife, Smt. Kishori Minz/Petitioner, three minor daughters and one minor son. Petitioner filed an application seeking appointment for herself under the aforesaid Rules. The Opposite Party No. 2 held an inquiry on the financial status of the Petitioner, as to whether the family was in distress. The Revenue Inspector, Sadar, Sundargarh enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the Tahasildar, Sadar, Sundargarh on 14.5.1998 certifying that the family was in distress and rehabilitation assistance should be provided under the said Rules.The Establishment Officer of the Collectorate, Sundargarh issued letter dated 10.8.1998 to the District Judge, Sundargarh enclosing the distress certificate duly signed by the A.D.M., Sundargarh asking him to make appointment of the Petitioner under the said Rules. However, it was not acted upon. The Petitioner submitted another representation dated 16.1.1999 (Annex.-7) to the District Judge, Sundargarh wherein Petitioner disclosed that she had passed 9th Class and was eligible for appointment as a peon. It was difficult for her to maintain a family of seven persons without any assistance. She was having land measuring Ac. 1.58 dec. in the name of her father-in-law. The income from the said land was about Rs. 1,500 per year and they are living in a miserable condition. However, the Petitioner was not offered the appointment. Hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. Her husband was the only bread earner for the family who died on 16th September, 1997. A period of more than 11 years has elapsed. Grievance of the Petitioner has not been redressed. The family of the Petitioner is living m a miserable condition.Therefore, a direction be issued to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner under the said Rules. 4. On the contrary Learned Addl. A period of more than 11 years has elapsed. Grievance of the Petitioner has not been redressed. The family of the Petitioner is living m a miserable condition.Therefore, a direction be issued to the Opposite Parties to appoint the Petitioner under the said Rules. 4. On the contrary Learned Addl. Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition placing reliance upon the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No. 2 and the said Rules, pointing out that the scheme under the said Rules has undergone a sea change as amendment was made in 1998 in the said Rules providing that the amount of family pension received by the dependent of the deceased employee also be taken into consideration while considering the financial condition of the family. Therefore, distress certificate is to be examined taking in to account the amount of family pension also. In the instant case, as the Petitioner was getting Rs. 1785 per month, her annual income from pension comes to Rs. 21,420, which is to be added to her other income of Rs. 11,500 as indicated in her distress certificate. Therefore, the total annual income comes to Rs. 32,920. The prescribed limit for distress family is Rs. 20,000. Thus Petitioner's case does not fall within the zone of consideration. She has rightly been not offered the appointment. It is further submitted by the Learned Addl. Government Advocate that counter affidavit, annexing all the documents including the amendment in the Rules etc. had been filed on 20.4.2000, but till date rebutting the same, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner, though a period of nine years has lapsed. Thus the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The law on the issue is no more res-integra, as the issue has been considered by the Court time and again. 7. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family which has lost its bread- earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family which has lost its bread- earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it being not a vested right. 8. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others the Apex Court held as under: It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. 9. The aforesaid Judgment was approved and the principle laid down therein was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolwati Vs. Union of India and Others, . 10. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others the Apex Court has considered the nature of the right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court has observed as under: It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the Rules for the post. However, to this general Rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the Rules for the post. However, to this general Rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the Rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.... The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose, it must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the Rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.... The exception to the Rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.... Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased.... The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course.... The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family.... The consideration for such employment is not a vested right.... The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis. 11. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Another, ; State of Bihar and others etc. Vs. Samsuz Zoha etc., ; Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar, ; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, ; and State of Haryana and Another Vs. Ankur Gupta and it has categorically been held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course since it is not a vested right. 12. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh the Apex Court placed reliance upon the Judgments referred to above and observed that the object of providing compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship. Therefore, an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. 13. Similarly, in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar and Another the Apex Court reiterated and followed the law laid down in Umesh Nagpal's case (supra) and directed the applicants involved therein to apply for employment on compassionate ground "by giving full details of the family circumstances and the economic conditions." 14. In Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Others the Apex Court has observed as under: The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Pushpendra Kumar and Others the Apex Court has observed as under: The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both the ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision. Care has therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee. 15. In Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board Vs. Chhathu Ram and Others the Supreme Court held that in the absence of the statutory provisions, an adopted son cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. Similarly, In General Secretary, American Express Bank Union v. American Express Bank Ltd. (1999) SCC 1235, the Supreme Court held that mere adoption of recruitment policy in pursuance of a Settlement between the Union and the employer for compassionate employment of the specified categories of relations of employees on their retirement, death or in capitation, cannot be enforced unless adopted by the employer by bringing the Standing Order/Statutory Rule. Similarly, in West Bengal State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Samir K. Sarkar the Apex Court held that embargo on compassionate employment in case of death of employee within two years prior to reaching the age of superannuation, was not invalid. 16. Undoubtedly, in Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Similarly, in West Bengal State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Samir K. Sarkar the Apex Court held that embargo on compassionate employment in case of death of employee within two years prior to reaching the age of superannuation, was not invalid. 16. Undoubtedly, in Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others the Supreme Court held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right but it should not be denied in deserving cases for the reason that it would be tantamount to denial of economic and social justice as enshrined in the Constitution and law must be, in its adaptability and flexibility, applied depending upon the situation for the benefit of the society. 17. In Surya Kant Kadam v. State of Karnataka and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2415 , the Apex Court held that in absence of any statutory rules, appointment on compassionate ground can be governed by the executive instructions and in spite of the fact that the said instructions may not have a statutory force, the same are bound to be observed by the employer. 18. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar the Apex Court held that compassionate employment is not given to offer a status on a family and no person can claim to have the same post and if rules/executive instructions provide that appointment shall be made on a post one stage below, it can be made not only on the next below post but to any other lower post as the Rules provide only that the appointment may be offered at least one step below the post the deceased Government Servant was holding and there can be no bar in offering a lower post for the reason that the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to redeem the family from financial constrains and not to confer any other benefit or status. 19. In Sail and Another Vs. Awadhesh Singh and Others the Supreme Court held that if Rule prohibits an appointment on compassionate ground if any other member of the family is already in service, the said Rule is valid and no direction can be issued against such a scheme. 20. In State of Manipur Vs. Md. 19. In Sail and Another Vs. Awadhesh Singh and Others the Supreme Court held that if Rule prohibits an appointment on compassionate ground if any other member of the family is already in service, the said Rule is valid and no direction can be issued against such a scheme. 20. In State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin the Supreme Court considered the issue involved herein as in that case also the application was filed at a much belated stage as the dependant therein was 10 years of age at the time of death of his father. The Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose of giving compassionate employment is only to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service, only to alleviate the distress of the family and at a belated stage as these grounds are no more in existence the employment cannot be given. While deciding the said case reliance had been placed upon its earlier Judgments, particularly, in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, ; State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rani Devi and Another, . 21. Appointment is to be effected under the Rules/Scheme, which must be in consonance with constitutional mandate. (Vide National Institute of Technology and Others Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, ; State Bank of India and Others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, ; and I.G. (Karmik) and Others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, . 22. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja received by the basis of the deceased employee the Supreme Court held that the retrial benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment. The Court placed reliance on its Judgment in the case of General Manager (D and PB) and Others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and Another, . 23. In Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others the Apex Court held that receipt of family pension cannot be ground to deny employment on compassionate ground. 24. In State of Kerala Vs. The Court placed reliance on its Judgment in the case of General Manager (D and PB) and Others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and Another, . 23. In Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others the Apex Court held that receipt of family pension cannot be ground to deny employment on compassionate ground. 24. In State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair it has been held: If the Rules or executive orders or instructions of the "Corporation" prohibits some category of person for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that any other member of the family is already in service, such executive instruction is valid and no direction by the Court could be issued in derogation to such instruction or circular or scheme.... The Court has to desist to invoke its power in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to make a judicial review of specific or executive instruction. 25. An employment on compassionate ground should be provided strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Court cannot take a view as to make it violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Vide Cochin Dock Labour Board Vs. Leenamma Samuel and Others. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Vide U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Pukhraj Singh and Others, ; and A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by Depot Manager Vs. K. Pochaiah and Another, . 26. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, the Supreme Court again reiterated that the purpose of the Rules providing for compassionate employment is only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner who had left the family in penury without any means of livelihood, and that there cannot be a reservation of a vacancy for the dependants of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. In Regional Manager, A.P. SRTC and Another Vs. C.M. Pavana Kumari the Apex Court held that direction cannot be issued to appoint a person on compassionate ground de hores the scheme framed by the employer and nor the Court had a power to modify the scheme or Rules framed in this regard. Similar view has been, reiterated in the Divisional Manager A.P. SRTC. C.M. Pavana Kumari the Apex Court held that direction cannot be issued to appoint a person on compassionate ground de hores the scheme framed by the employer and nor the Court had a power to modify the scheme or Rules framed in this regard. Similar view has been, reiterated in the Divisional Manager A.P. SRTC. v. K. Radha Krishna, (2001) 1 LLJ 1698 SC, while deciding a case of appointment on compassionate ground under Re-employment Children Quota provided under the Circular issued by the Corporation. 27. While reiterating the purpose of making appointment on compassionate ground, the Supreme Court, in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi held that the main object behind giving such employment is to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee, Such appointment cannot be made in absence of Rules or Instructions. Application for such employment must be made within the period prescribed by the Rules/Instructions. Application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. 28. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another the Apex Court held that the High Court and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments. 29. In Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh and Others the Supreme Court held as under: We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the Appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision. Similar view has been reiterated in Ramakrishna Kamat and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, . 30. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Prem Kumar Sharma and Others the Apex Court held that it is not permissible for any Court orTribunal to issue direction for giving compassionate appointment in contravention of the statutory Rules or guidelines in this regard. 31. In A. Umarani Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, . 30. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Prem Kumar Sharma and Others the Apex Court held that it is not permissible for any Court orTribunal to issue direction for giving compassionate appointment in contravention of the statutory Rules or guidelines in this regard. 31. In A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others while considering the case of compassionate appointment it has been held by the Apex Court that even the Supreme Court should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 issuing a direction to give compassionate appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Scheme/Rules etc. As the provisions have to be complied with mandatorily and any appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the scheme would be illegal. 32. Thus, it is evident that such employment cannot be claimed as a vested right. The concept of vested right has been explained by the Apex Court in Masammat Bibi Sayeeda and Others etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Others wherein it has been described as under: The word 'vested' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page 1563, as 'vested', Fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page 1397, 'vested' is defined as Law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; Vested interest. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. 33. The Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law. Nor the Court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. Vide State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, ; Union of India and Another Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited, ; and Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and Others Vs. Dr Anand Prakash Mishra and Others, . 34. Nor the Court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. Vide State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, ; Union of India and Another Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited, ; and Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and Others Vs. Dr Anand Prakash Mishra and Others, . 34. In State of Punjab and others Vs. Renuka Singla and others dealing with a similar situation, the Apex Court observed as under: We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or the Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory Rules and regulations. 35. Similarly, in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashrafulla Khan and Others the Apex Court has held as under: The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce Rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injected by law. 36. The instant case requires to be considered in the light of aforesaid settled legal proposition. In the instant case there is no denial to the averments made to the counter affidavit that the total annual income of the Petitioner was Rs. 32,920 by taking into account the amount of pension etc. and the prescribed limit under the said Rules had been only Rs. 20,000 per year. There is no denial by the Petitioner to the amendment made in the said Rules and the averments made in the counter affidavit had not been rebutted by filing the rejoinder affidavit though the counter affidavit was filed about nine years ago. It is not permissible for the Court to issue any direction in contravention of the statutory Rules or scheme framed by the State in this regard. 37. In view of the above, as the case of the Petitioner admittedly does not fall within the zone of consideration taking into account the income of the family per year as per the said Rules, we do not find any force in the petition. It lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed