JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. — This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.7.2000 passed in O.A. No. 697 of 1998 and order dated 14.08.2001 passed in Review Application No. 22 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Opposite Party No.1 was the applicant before the Tribunal. 2. Opposite party No.1 filed the application for compassionate appointment under rehabilitation scheme on the basis of her claim to be the wife of deceased employee Harish Chandra Behera who died while in service under petitioner no. 3, Director and Commandant, Proof and Experimental Establishment, Chandipur, Balasore on 12.12.1997. Petitioners filed counter to the rejoinder resisting the claim for compassionate appointment under rehabilitation scheme. Petitioners disputed Opposite Party No.1’s status as the wife of the deceased employee. It was further averred by the petitioners that as per office memorandum dated 26.09.1995 of Ministry of Personnel (P.G.) Pensions, Depart¬ment of Personnel & Training, maximum of 5% of vacancies are to be filled up under rehabilitation scheme and by that time no such post was available to be filled up. It was also contended that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue direction for compassionate appointment. Learned Tribunal upon reference to materials on record, more specifically order of the S.D.J.M., Balasore in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Opposite Party No.1 against the deceased employee and the judgment of this Court in M.A. No. 753 of 1998 arising out of a proceeding under Workmen’s Compensation Act holding the Opposite Party No.1 to the legally married wife of the deceased employee, came to the finding that Opposite Party No 1 is the widow of the deceased employee. Peti¬tioners having not disputed the distress condition of Opposite Party No.1 it was held by the learned Tribunal that Opposite Party No.1 is entitled to be appointed to any post under peti¬tioner no. 3 on compassionate grounds as per rules. Peti¬tioners having not disputed the distress condition of Opposite Party No.1 it was held by the learned Tribunal that Opposite Party No.1 is entitled to be appointed to any post under peti¬tioner no. 3 on compassionate grounds as per rules. Learned Tribunal took note of office memorandum of the Ministry of Per¬sonnel, P.G. & Pension dated 26.09.1995 providing for compassion¬ate appointment of maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group C or D posts authorizing the appointing authority to hold back up to 5% of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commis¬sion, so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassion¬ate grounds. However, keeping in view the main object behind offering compassionate appointment to a member of family which has been suddenly launched into penury due to untimely demise of the sole bread earner, it was directed by the Tribunal to the petitioners to provide Opposite Party No.1 an appointment under compassionate grounds as against next available vacancy commensu¬rating with her education qualifications. In issuing such direc¬tion, the Tribunal relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others : (1994) 4 SCC 138 and another decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, and observed that as delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment there can be no waiting list for ab¬sorbing persons to get a compassionate appointment. Petitioners appear to have preferred review application solely on the ground that in view of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another : 1994 SCC (L & S) 737, Tribunal could not have issued direction to the department to provide appointment to the Opposite Party No.1. Learned Tribunal took note of the fact that decision relied upon by the department to seek review of the order passed in the O.A. having not been relied upon by the de¬partment in their pleadings and the department having not disput¬ed the indigent/distressed condition of Opposite Party No.1, order passed in O.A. did not warrant interference in view of limited scope of exercise of jurisdiction for review. 3. 3. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in assailing the impugned orders passed by the Tribu¬nal was that in view of mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another (supra), the Tribunal could not have issued direction for compassionate appointment of Opposite Party No.1. It was urged that in the aforesaid decision it has been held that Tribunal or Court can not issue direction for appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus can be exercised simply to direct consideration of claim for compassion¬ate appointment. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners also sought to avail support from the decision in State Bank of India and another vs. Somvir Singh : 2007 AIR SCW 1571. 4. In reply, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 that it was never the case of the peti¬tioners that Opposite Party No.1 is not eligible for compassion¬ate appointment under rehabilitation scheme of the department. Decisions relied upon by the department simply lay down that directions could not be issued by Court/Tribunal for appointment on compassionate grounds dehors the scheme for compassionate appointment. When the department ignores the claim for compas¬sionate appointment an applicant fulfilling all the requirements of the scheme, direction can be issued for appointment under the rehabilitation scheme. Relying on a Three Judge Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India and others : AIR 1991 SC 469 , it was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 that when an eligible applicant is denied immediate compassionate appointment to redeem the family in distress, directions can be issued to take immedi¬ate steps for employment in order to take care of the family in distress. Decisions in Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others : AIR 1989 SC 1976 and Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others : 2007 (2) Supreme 519 were also pressed into service on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 to urge that in appropriate cases directions have been consistently issued for appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. Evidently, it is not the case of the petitioners that Opposite Party No. 1 is not an indigent/distressed condition. 5. Evidently, it is not the case of the petitioners that Opposite Party No. 1 is not an indigent/distressed condition. The main resistance of the department against the appointment of Opposite Party No. 1 on compassionate grounds before the Tribunal was that her status as the widow of the deceased employee was doubtful. Finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that Opposite Party No.1 is the widow of deceased employee arrived at on the basis of earlier judicial orders is not at all assailed by the department. The only objection of the department to the order of the Tribunal is that in view of the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another (supra), direction for compassionate appointment is not sustainable. However, on a close reading of the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another (supra) rendered by Bench consisting of two Judges, it is observed that there is no blanket embargo against issue of mandamus directing compassionate appointment. Rather, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as one of the members of the deceased family was gainfully employed, Life Insurance Corporation of India could not have been directed by means of a mandamus to give compassion¬ate appointment to another member of the family which was not in penury. It is well settled in law that no mandamus can be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. Objection of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to issue of direction for compassionate ap¬pointment in the aforesaid case was against the fashion in which jurisdiction under mandamus was exercised. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another (supra), it was stated that no direction for compassion¬ate appointment can be issued when such appointment is against the provisions under rehabilitation scheme or rules. Observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court occurring at para - 17 of the deci¬sion relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners reads: “Thus, apart from the direction as to appointment on compas¬sionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direc¬tion does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightaway direct the ap¬pointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warrant¬ed.” (Underline supplied) 6. In the present case, there is nothing to suggest that Opposite Party No. 1 is otherwise ineligible for compassionate appointment. Hindrance, if any, caused by the provision for hold¬ing back maximum of 5% of vacancies for compassionate appointment has been taken care of learned Tribunal upon reference to deci¬sion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) to observe that delay defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment and there can be no waiting list for absorbing persons to get a compassionate ap¬pointment and accordingly has directed appointment of the Oppo¬site Party No.1 as against next available vacancy. 7. Undoubtedly, as has been reiterated in State Bank of India and another vs. Somvir Singh (supra), appointment on compas¬sionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transpar¬ent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Dependants of employees who died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer and the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. Neither in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhan¬dra Ambekar (Mrs) and another (supra) not in State Bank of India and another vs. Somvir Singh (supra), reference to Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India and others (supra) was made. 8. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others (supra), it was observed that non-consideration and denial of appointment to person eligible on compassionate grounds was patently arbitrary. Accordingly, department was directed to give compassionate appointment to the applicant in the post to which she has already qualified. 8. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others (supra), it was observed that non-consideration and denial of appointment to person eligible on compassionate grounds was patently arbitrary. Accordingly, department was directed to give compassionate appointment to the applicant in the post to which she has already qualified. In coming to such conclusion, it was observed in para-9: “We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing ap¬pointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 9. In Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India and others (supra) a Bench consisting of three Judges reiterated the above quoted earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and directed the Union of India to take immediate steps for employing the second son of the appellant in a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualification within a period of one month from the date of this order. 10. So also in Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) the Department of Personnel, State of Haryana was directed to issue an appointment letter posting the appellant to any post within the State of Haryana as per his original seniori¬ty within four weeks of the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. In the present case, petitioner having no objection against compassionate appointment of Opposite Party No. 1 on the ground of ineligibility under the scheme, the direction of the Tribunal could not be held to be a direction dehors the scheme. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is dismissed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.