JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Order Dated 5.2.2009 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1344 of 2000'is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details the short facts of the case are as follows: The father of the Petitioner was serving as a Peon in the establishment of Tahasildar, Binika in the district of Sonepur. In course of his service he suffered from serious ailments & permanently became incapacitated. He was directed to appear before the C.D.M.O., Sonepur for medical examination by the Board. After examination, a Medical Certificate was issued declaring him completely & permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the department. Thereafter, on 5.5.1998 the father of the Petitioner filed a representation before Opp. Party No. 3, inter alia, praying to allow him to retire from service on health ground with a further prayer to give employment to his son on compassionate ground. To the said representation an application of the Petitioner seeking his appointment on compassionate ground was also enclosed. The application filed by the father of the Petitioner was allowed by Order Dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure-3) & he was permitted to retire from Government service on the ground of invalidation w.e.f. the date of his expiry of leave, i.e. 11.9.1998. Thereafter, it appears, the Petitioner filed application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in the year 1999. The said application was forwarded by the Tahasildar, Binika to Collector, Sonepur on 19.2.1999 vide Annexure-4. In the meanwhile the Petitioner filed an application to issue distress certificate. After due consideration the Collector was pleased to reject the said application. Being aggrieved by the fact that no action was taken on the application filed by the Petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, the Petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1344/2000. 3. Before the Tribunal it was submitted that the father of the Petitioner having retired prematurely on 11.9.1998, on the ground of permanent incapacitation, in consonance with the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (for short "Rehabilitation Assistance Rules") he was entitled to an appointment. 4. The aforesaid contentions were resisted by the State Government mainly on the ground that in view of the amendment of the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules which came into force w.e.f. 08.10.1998, the Petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit under the Scheme. 5. 4. The aforesaid contentions were resisted by the State Government mainly on the ground that in view of the amendment of the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules which came into force w.e.f. 08.10.1998, the Petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit under the Scheme. 5. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties arrived at a conclusion that by the time the Petitioner filed the application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, amended rules had already come into force & as such the authorities had not committed any illegality in rejecting the petition. The said order as stated earlier is assailed in this Writ Petition. 6. According to Learned Counsel, the father of the Petitioner admittedly retired prematurely on 11.9.1998 on the ground of incapacitation. He had submitted an application on 5.5.1998 for allowing him to retire. Along with the said application the Petitioner had also submitted an application seeking appointment. Rehabilitation Assistance Rules were admittedly amended w.e.f. 8.10.1998. Thus, there was no reason as to why the application filed by the Petitioner was not considered. 7. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated by Learned Counsel appearing for the State. It is submitted that in fact the Petitioner had filed an application in the year 1999 & by the said date the amended rules had already come into force & as such the authorities' have rightly rejected the application. 8. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length & perused the pleadings meticulously. There is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects. The father of the Petitioner in fact filed an application on 5.5.1998 seeking premature retirement. The said application was allowed by Order Dated 14.12.1998. Thus he was permitted to retire w.e.f. 11.9.1998, i.e. the date on which his leave expired. The cause of action for filing an application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme arose only after 14.12.1998 or at best on 11.9.1998. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact the application said to have been filed by the Petitioner on 5.5.1998 was a premature one. Admittedly, the Petitioner filed another application in the year 1999 by then the amended Rules had already come into force. Thus, the authorities did not commit any irregularity in rejecting the said application. 10. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact the application said to have been filed by the Petitioner on 5.5.1998 was a premature one. Admittedly, the Petitioner filed another application in the year 1999 by then the amended Rules had already come into force. Thus, the authorities did not commit any irregularity in rejecting the said application. 10. Law is well settled that an employment on compassionate ground should be provided strictly in accordance with the Rules & the Court cannot take a liberal view contrary to the Rules (see Cochin Dock Labour Board Vs. Leenamma Samuel and Others, . 11. That apart, the object of providing compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from the financial hardship. Therefore, an "ameliorating relief" should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment, (see Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hakim Singh, . 12. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the nature of right, which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court observed that the only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious conditions of the deceased's family. The consideration of such empIoyment is not a vested fight. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis. 13. In the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh and Others, The supreme Court held as follows: 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. 14. In view of the aforesaid, among many other authoritative pronouncements as the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, governing compassionate appointment, have been amended, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error, consequently we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed