Judgment Heard Shri I.P. Gairola, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner's father died in harness on 4th August, 1996 while working as a Watchman. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds by moving an application dated 14th September, 1996. The matter was forwarded to a Committee to assess the financial condition of the family of the deceased. The Committee submitted a report dated 25-11-1997 indicating therein that the petitioner and his mother were residing in one room and paying rent of Rs. 500/- per month. The Committee, further found that the petitioner was unemployed and that the only source of survival was the savings which the deceased had left. The Committee opined that the family of the deceased had no source of income to meet out the living expenditure and that the petitioner and the mother were in a penurious condition and accordingly recommended that the petitioner may be given job on the basis of his qualification. It is further alleged that the petitioner was subsequently asked to submit an application for the post of Driver which he duly submitted. The petitioner contends that his application remained pending and no orders were passed and, consequently, the present writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed indicating in paragraph 16 that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be given as a matter of right and that the same has to be considered according to the need and requirement of the concerned department. This concept of the respondents is patently erroneous. The need and requirement of the department is not to be considered at all. It is the need and requirement of the family of the deceased which is of prime importance and which is required to be considered. From these averments, it is clear that the department is not aware of the concept of appointment on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court has reiterated in a catena of cases that appointment are required to be given immediately on compassionate grounds in order to tide over the financial crisis. From these averments, it is clear that the department is not aware of the concept of appointment on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court has reiterated in a catena of cases that appointment are required to be given immediately on compassionate grounds in order to tide over the financial crisis. In the same paragraph of the counter affidavit, the respondents have further submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected twice by the Committee and have also annexed the said rejection order as annexure CA-6 and 7 to the counter affidavit. A perusal of the said annexures, however, reveals that it is merely an internal correspondence of the respondents and is not the rejection order of the Committee. There is no rejection order of the Committee being brought on the record. There is nothing to indicate that the rejection orders, if any, passed by the Committee was duly served upon the petitioner. 4. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically submitted that the Committee appointed by the respondents had given the recommendation in favour of the petitioner which fact has not been denied by the respondents in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. 5. The Supreme Court has, no doubt, stated that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be given as a matter of right and that the respondents are required to consider the financial condition of the family. The Committee's report, annexure-3 to the writ petition, clearly indicates that the family of the deceased are living in penurious condition and below the poverty line. The Committee also found that the petitioner was unemployed and was meeting his day-to-day expenses by utilizing the savings left by his father. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondents are only considering their own needs and requirements and are not concerned with the welfare of the family of the deceased who has served uninterruptedly for almost 20 years. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the attitude of the respondents, no useful purpose would be served in issuing the mandamus to the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner. A positive direction is required to be given. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the attitude of the respondents, no useful purpose would be served in issuing the mandamus to the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner. A positive direction is required to be given. Considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record and', as stated aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to give an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to cost which is assessed as Rs. 5,000/- which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within the same periods.