Judgment N. Kirubakaran,J. 1. The petitioners challenge the order of the third respondent dated 17. 2008 rejecting the application for compassionate appointment. 2. The facts of the case are that the first petitioners husband Mr. Kasi, who was working as Bailiff (Ameen) in the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur, died in harness on 19. 1986. It seems that no petition for appointment was made to the authorities and only on 7. 2006, the first petitioner filed an application seeking for compassionate appointment for her son, the second petitioner herein. The third respondent returned the application, dated 7. 2006 for due compliance of furnishing Legal Heirship Certificate, Death Certificate, Community Certificate and No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs. Subsequently, it was duly complied with and the second petitioner re-submitted the application form on 24. 2007 to the third respondent, who, through the second respondent, returned the same. 3. The first petitioner again submitted another application, dated 25. 2008 to the Registrar, High Court, Madras, seeking for compassionate appointment for the second petitioner and the said application was in turn was forwarded to the third respondent. The third respondent, by order dated 17. 2008, rejected the first petitioners prayer for compassionate appointment of the second petitioner, stating that, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1479, Home (POL XV) Department, dated 11. 1999, the application was beyond three years as stipulated in the said G.O. Challenging the said order dated 17. 2008, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The main contention of Mr. Hidayathullah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that G.O.Ms.No.1479, dated 11. 1999 does not prescribe the three year limitation for the legal heirs of Government servants whose death occurred prior to 26. 1995 and it only envisages that the petition for compassionate appointment shall be considered on merits and the three year rule shall not apply. He contended that as the first petitioners husband died on 19. 1986, i.e. prior to 26. 1995, the application for compassionate appointment of the second petitioner should have been considered on merits. 5. The rejection on the ground that the application was beyond three years, is valid, as the first petitioners application dated 7. 2006 seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds came after 20 years of the death of the Government servant. The aforesaid fact is a relevant factor and the order is deemed to have been passed on merits also. 5. The rejection on the ground that the application was beyond three years, is valid, as the first petitioners application dated 7. 2006 seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds came after 20 years of the death of the Government servant. The aforesaid fact is a relevant factor and the order is deemed to have been passed on merits also. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is valid. 6. As per the Websters Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, the meaning of Compassion is "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by suffering or misfortune accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the pain or remove its cause". 7. Compassionate appointment is intended to benefit the family immediately whose bread-winner died and the aim is to support the family and reduce the hardship and financial difficulties. Moreover, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of normal employment, where the appointment is open to all eligible candidates to competition. 8. The Apex Court, in the case of "State of U.P. and others vs. Paras Nath", reported in AIR 1998 SC 2612 = 1998 (2) SCC 412 , held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family of the Government servant who dies in harness. 9. In another case, viz., "SBI vs. Jaspal Kaur", reported in 2007 (5) MLJ 396 (SC), the Apex Court held that, "A major criterion for appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family left behind by the deceased person. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury such appointments cannot be made." In this case, financial condition cannot be said to be penury, as the application is made after more than 20 years. 10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of "J & K vs. Sajeed Ahmed Mir", reported in 2006 (4) M.L.J. 605 (SC), that, "once it is proved that inspite of the death of the bread-winner, the family has survived for over a period of fifteen years, there is no necessity to order appointment on compassionate ground." 11. In this case, the first petitioners husband died as early as on 19. 1986. In this case, the first petitioners husband died as early as on 19. 1986. When the petitioners were able to lead life for the past 23 years, there is nothing to state that they require the appointment on the ground of compassion. The very fact that they maintained themselves would demonstrate that their claim is baseless. 12. Based on the above aid ratios of the Supreme Court and taking into account the fact that the petitioners family survived more than 20 years after the death of the first petitioners husband, the impugned order is valid and there cannot be any reason to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.