Dr. Saikia, CJ. 1. Heard Mrs. Shaista Hakim, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. 2. Since delay in preferring the instant appeal has been condoned vide order dated October 12, 2010 (today) passed in CDLSW no. 35/2009 and keeping in view the importance of the issue raised in this appeal as well as upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we propose to dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal today itself at the admission stage. 3. The basic issue involved in this appeal, which witnesses a challenge to the order dated April 9, 2008 passed by Writ Court in SWP no. 902/2004 is that as to whether the appointment on compassionate ground can be made on adhoc basis. 4. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent, having taken into account SRO 43 of 1994, came to a definite and clear finding that compassionate appointment must be of permanent in nature. Writ Court has observed as under: "Perusal of the aforesaid SROs makes it clear that there is no provision in the said SROs to appoint a person on compassionate ground on daily wage, temporary or adhoc basis. Once the authorities have taken a decision to appoint a person on compassionate ground under the aforesaid SROs then that appointment is to be made on permanent basis. If appointment on compassionate ground is made on temporary, adhoc or daily wage basis then the purpose of aforesaid SROs will be frustrated. Purpose of such appointment under these SROs is to give immediate relief to the bereaved family whose bread earner died in harness." 5. Records also reveal that appointment of respondent was made by the authority concerned on adhoc basis but under the `Subject’ head it was shown as "compassionate appointment of Smt. Shashi Bala". This is reflected from communication issued by Director Health Services Jammu on August 22, 1998 addressed to Commissioner /Secretary to Government, Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education Deptt, Jammu and Kashmir Government, Srinagar, as well as order dated January 14, 1991, issued by Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department, which are annexed as Annexures -- `A’ and `C’ to this appeal. 6. The documentation would clearly indicates that though the respondent’s case was considered on compassionate ground, she got her appointment on adhoc basis, which is not permissible under law, as already recorded in the impugned judgment. 7. 6. The documentation would clearly indicates that though the respondent’s case was considered on compassionate ground, she got her appointment on adhoc basis, which is not permissible under law, as already recorded in the impugned judgment. 7. We have carefully perused the SRO 43 of 1994 as well as the impugned judgment. Having considered the facts and circumstances in its entirety, we are of the firm view that a compassionate appointment needs to be treated as permanent appointment because such appointment is always intended to tide over the financial stress faced by the family members on the sudden death of the sole bread earner. 8. That being the position, we find that there is no plausible or cogent ground to dislodge the impugned judgment and, accordingly, we do agree with the observations recorded and the views expressed in the impugned judgment. 9. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.