Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the policy of compassionate appointment framed by the Electricity Board by pointing out that in their scheme of things, the mother who was a class-I heir is not referred to as a member of the family who could be granted a compassionate appointment or financial assistance. The complaint of the petitioner is that her son who was a bachelor died and the "family" in the compassionate employment scheme includes only a dependent son or a daughter or a widow and not the mother. 2. It is stated times without number that compassionate appointment which is provided under any scheme is invariably a deviation from Article 14 and the Court shall have no power to give a direction any more than what the scheme itself provides for. A limitation of the Courts power was examined by the Honble Supreme Court in slightly a different situation in State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta-2004(1) S.C.T. 165 : (2003) 7 SCC 704, where the compassionate appointment had been offered to a person whose mother was a Government servant. Citing its own earlier judgment in LIC of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar-1995(4) S.C.T. 298 : (1994) 2 SCC 718, it pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. In this case, if in the policy, the definition of `Family is restricted only to widow or children, there is nothing arbitrary about it and it shall not be possible that every Class-I heir must also be referred to in the definition. The scheme for compassionate appointment or financial assistance, it is expected, will improve the morale of the workforce that the immediate family will be taken care of, if any unexpected sudden death results and will also be dependent on the financial resources of the administration that sets out a definition for the likely beneficiaries without in any way unduly infringing on the right of any member from the public for competing for the post and not losing out to a wide body of persons as eligible for compassionate appointment. It is in this context that it is always seen that compassionate appointment is an exception to Article 14 and has to be strictly construed. 3. It is in this context that it is always seen that compassionate appointment is an exception to Article 14 and has to be strictly construed. 3. I find no arbitrariness in restricting the definition of family in the manner that the respondents had done and there is no scope for intervention before this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.