1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the petition is admitted to hearting and taken up for final disposal. 3. Petitioner's husband is stated to have died on 16.09.2007 while working as a teacher in the Education Department. He left behind his widow and two minor children aged 5 and 6 years. Seeking benefit of SRO 43, the petitioner applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Her grievance is that she satisfies the eligibility set out in the rules, except for the fact that she had crossed the upper age limit of 37 years. It is on this ground that appointment has been denied to the petitioner. She has placed on record certain orders passed by the Government, granting relaxation in upper age limit while appointing the dependants of the deceased employees who died in harness. Petitioner claims parity with those persons. 4. Stand of the respondents is that the General Administration Department has adopted a policy for settlement of cases under SRO 43 where under upper age limit up to 5 years can be relaxed and as the petitioner's case does not come within the said policy, her case has been rejected. It is further claimed that persons in whose favour relaxation has been granted, are within the purview of 5 years and, as such, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner. 5. Underlying idea for grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family whose sole bread earner has died. The object of the scheme cannot be un-done by taking recourse to the issue of applicant's having crossed the upper age limit. It will defeat the purpose of the act. There is no uniform standard with the State to judge the ground for granting relaxation of age. It will vary from case to case, depending upon the circumstances of each case. The objection, that State has adopted a policy not to grant relaxation beyond 5 years, works against the very purpose of the scheme. There may be cases where a person dies in harness leaving behind his family who have no source of income. The impediment to implement the said SRO is made dependant upon the age of the widow. The State can, in such cases, relax the upper age limit. There may be cases where a person dies in harness leaving behind his family who have no source of income. The impediment to implement the said SRO is made dependant upon the age of the widow. The State can, in such cases, relax the upper age limit. It may be reiterated that State has the power to grant relaxation under Rule 7. What is prohibited by law is that there cannot be any relaxation to the basic eligibility, which goes to the root of appointment. But insofar as grant of relaxation in case of upper age limit, same can always depend upon the facts of each case. 6. The policy of granting relaxation up to 5 years cannot be an impediment in granting relaxation in cases where the persons are not covered by the aforesaid policy. I say so because the policy decision has to be adopted in a manner and to supplement the objectives of the scheme. It will not be as a matter of rule to grant relaxation in each and every cases but in cases where the family is left without any source of income, the relaxation is required to be granted. 7. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to re-consider the cases of the petitioner for grant of relaxation of age and issue the order of appointment in her favour, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served on them.