ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a married daughter of the deceased employee, seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant her appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the father of the petitioner namely, late Shri Lalla Ram Dewangan working as Line Attendant Grade - II in the office of the Executive Engineer (O&M) Division. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Bhilai, died on 13-6-2005, which is evident from Annexure-P/2, in harness. The petitioner made an application before the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment. 4. The policy dated 25-3-2008 (Annexure - R-3-411) for grant of compassionate appointment does not provide for grant of compassionate appointment to the married daughter of the deceased employee. It provides that the compassionate appointment may be granted to the dependent family members of the deceased employee i.e. wife or son or un-married daughter. Since the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased employee, no appointment can be granted de hors the policy dated 25-3-2008. 5. Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. It is also well settled that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment if the fan1ily members could sustain themselves financially from other sources of income. (See Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh! State of Manipur Vs. Md Rajaodin and State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir 6. In view of the above well settled principles of law, applying to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. The petition is being devoid of merit and sans any substance. 7. In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby' dismissed. No order asto costs. Petition Dismissed. 1. (1997) 8 see 85 2 AIR 2003 sew 4339 3. The petition is being devoid of merit and sans any substance. 7. In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby' dismissed. No order asto costs. Petition Dismissed. 1. (1997) 8 see 85 2 AIR 2003 sew 4339 3. (2006) 5 see 766