JUDGMENT : Heard on admission. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05-05-2008 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur; whereby, Original Application No. 242/2002 filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. The facts briefly are that father of the petitioner, Gopal Prasad, employed with Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur, died in harness on 27-05-1995. The petitioner being dependent filed an application on 22-06-1995 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. His request for appointment was rejected by order dated 25-04-2001. Aggrieved whereof the petitioner filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, raising contentions therein that, between the period from 1995 to 2001 seven Boards were constituted for considering requests for appointment on compassionate grounds. It was contended that only the favoured one were granted appointment and the claim of the petitioner was not objectively considered. The respondents while contradicting the contentions put forth by the petitioner before the Tribunal stated that after the death of father of the petitioner an application form for appointment on compassionate grounds was sent to the widow vide letter dated 21-07-1995, in response whereof the same was returned on 07-02-1997. It was contended that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Board in August, 1997. The Board considered the case of the petitioner as per the policy guide lines and awarded 54 marks. It was further contended that at relevant time there was only one vacancy of group 'D' and a candidate who secured 83 marks was appointed. An information to that effect was sent to the widow on 12-08-1997. Thereafter for subsequent year fresh form was tendered which was received duly filled on 29-09-1999. The Board considered the case of the petitioner along with 3 others for three vacant posts of group 'D'. It is contended that the petitioner was awarded 40 marks whereas other 3 candidates respectively secured 81, 72 and 63 marks and were preferred for appointment. Thereafter further application form was sought for on 04-04-2000 which was placed before the Board in January, 2001 for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds against eight vacancies of group 'D'. It is urged that candidates securing 88, 87, 84, 83, 78, 76 and 76 marks respectively were appointed. An information to that effect was tendered to the widow of late Gopal Prasad on 25-04-2009. It is urged that candidates securing 88, 87, 84, 83, 78, 76 and 76 marks respectively were appointed. An information to that effect was tendered to the widow of late Gopal Prasad on 25-04-2009. Though some disputed facts raised before the Tribunal in respect of consideration of the petitioner by respective Boards, however, the same were of no assistance to the petitioner as no cogent material in support thereof was brought before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and dwelling upon the factual aspects of the matter dismissed the Original Application preferred by the petitioner for compassionate appointment by the impugned order, which is being challenged in this petition. It is reiterated by the petitioner that there is no objective consideration by the Board in respect of appointment on compassionate ground. It is urged that had there been so, the Board ought to have awarded higher marks to the petitioner as would have facilitated his appointment on compassionate grounds. During the course of hearing the petitioner has also adverted to various circulars issued from time to time, such as Annexures-P/12, P/13 and P/14 dated 08-06-1989, 30-07-1989 and 12-07-2001. The circulars in our considered opinion does not improve the status of the petitioner nor it leads to enhancement of marks which were allotted to him on the basis of the policy in vogue for appointment on compassionate grounds. Admittedly, the petitioner got less marks in comparison to other applicants between the period from 1997 till 2001. It is also not in dispute that after the death of Gopal Prasad on 27-05-1995, the family has faired well and have survived the for such a long period. In Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja : (2004) 7 SCC 265 it was observed by their Lordships :- "4........It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis." The Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Bahadur Singh v. Union of India and others : 2004 (2) M.P.L.J. 13 has held :- "5. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis." The Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Bahadur Singh v. Union of India and others : 2004 (2) M.P.L.J. 13 has held :- "5. Even on merits, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Deceased died on 17-2-1990 and the family has survived for more than 12 years. It is not pointed out how, in the face of statement by respondents, the family is still in financial distress. Object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and relieving the family from financial distress due to the death of the sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, this type of appointment cannot be offered. As a matter of course, only deserving cases have to be found and offered compassionate appointments, more particularly when respondents have kept only 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group "C" and "D" posts for compassionate appointment. Decision of the Apex Court on which reliance is placed by the petitioner is of no assistance to advance the submission raised by him." Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in Bank of Maharashtra and another v. Manoj Kumar Dehariya : 2010 (3) SCC 213 has held :- "33- In view of the foregoing discussion, we proceed to record our conclusions as follows: 1. The grant of compassionate appointment is not a vested legal right. It is only a benefit granted in certain circumstances de hors the normal rule of appointment and when the employer has a right to evolve an appropriate policy after considering various factors for granting such a benefit, the considerations have to be made in accordance with the policy that is prevailing at that point of time. 2. It is only a benefit granted in certain circumstances de hors the normal rule of appointment and when the employer has a right to evolve an appropriate policy after considering various factors for granting such a benefit, the considerations have to be made in accordance with the policy that is prevailing at that point of time. 2. When it is held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and when grant of such appointment is governed by the rules and policies prevailing in an establishment, then consideration as per the rules existing is required to be made and consideration as per the rules existing is required to be made and consideration on the basis of a policy, which is given up by the employer and which has no application at that point of time cannot be insisted upon. 3. Having regard to the exceptional nature of this appointment and taking note of the fact that it is granted under a special scheme carved out de hors the normal mode of recruitment, the same has to be governed as per the policies or provisions governing such appointment prevalent at a particular point of time when consideration is to be made, and not on the basis of a policy which was in vogue and has been given up by the employer due to changed circumstances. 4. As compassionate appointment is granted by carving out a special scheme contrary to the normal mode of recruitment and when the employer or the government is at liberty to evolve a scheme for granting such appointment has to be made in accordance with the scheme or policy that is in existence. 5. The decision rendered in T. Swamy Dass (supra) and Heeralal Baria (supra) do not lay down the correct law and are hereby overruled. 6. Any right flowing from a settlement between the employer and employees' union or association has to be in a different compartment. 7. It would be the obligation of the employer to deal with the application with immediately and promptitude so that the grievance of a family in distress gets a fair treatment in accordance with law." In view of above we find no discrepancy in the order passed by the Tribunal as would warrant any interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.