JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the respondent to provide compassionate appointment. 2. It is admitted that petitioner’s father, working as Assistant Teacher in Sri Shivdan Singh Inter College, Aligarh, died on 8.12.2004 whereafter petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Clerk in the College. Considering the availability of vacancy and qualification etc. of petitioner’s mother, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh issued an order dated 26.9.2006 appointing petitioner’s mother as a Class IV employee but she did not join and continued to insist upon offering appointment on the post of Assistant Clerk. Subsequently, letter dated 13.8.2007 was issued by District Inspector of Schools for absorbing/appointing/accommodating the petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk w.e.f. 31.7.2007 in the above College but she did not take any interest in joining the post thereat by taking appropriate steps. On the contrary, on 10.8.2009, petitioner’s mother sent a letter to the Management of the College that due to family circumstances she is not able to join the service and since her daughter i.e. petitioner has now attained majority and this is being informed to the Management. Thereafter petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner’s mother, she did not join. In fact she was not allowed to join and there is no fault on her part and hence now she is entitled for compassionate appointment. 4. From the record it is admitted that considering sudden hardship suffered by petitioner’s family, if any, due to the death of her father, a letter was issued to petitioner’s mother on 26.9.2006 appointing her as a Class IV employee but she did not join and insisted for appointment on a higher status post. A compassionate appointment is not meant for conferring status but to provide succour to the bereaved family which has suffered loss due to sudden demise of sole bread earner. Once appointment letter was issued and the legal heir of the deceased employee accept or failed to accept the same, he/she cannot be allowed to claim an appointment subsequently on a higher post. This would be against the very objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment. Once appointment letter was issued and the legal heir of the deceased employee accept or failed to accept the same, he/she cannot be allowed to claim an appointment subsequently on a higher post. This would be against the very objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment. Moreover, petitioner’s mother did not find any financial scarcity compelling to join service in 2006 when letter of appointment was issued, in my view, at this belated stage claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. 5. In Managing Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi and another v. Pramoda Dei Alias Nayak, 1997 (11) SCC 390 , the Court said: “As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tied over the sudden financial crises and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment.” 6. In S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another, 1999 (I) LLJ 539, the Supreme Court said: “The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 7. In Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, AIR 1998 SC 2230 , the Court said: “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.” 8. In Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 2000 SC 2782 , it was held: “compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood” 9. In Punjab Nation Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, AIR 2004 SC 4155 , the Court said: “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. In Punjab Nation Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, AIR 2004 SC 4155 , the Court said: “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.” 10. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated by Apex Court in Union of India v. Bhagwan, 1995 (6) SCC 436, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23 . In the later case the Court said: “compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. ..... the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years.” 11. In State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 , the Court said: “The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.” 12. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.” 12. In Hariyana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, JT 2002 (3) SC 485 : 2002 (10) SCC 246, the Court said: “As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family ....” 13. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another, AIR 2005 SC 106 , the Court said: “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 crises.” 14. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed, AIR 2006 SC 2743 , the Court said: “Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that inspite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 15. Once it is proved that inspite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 15. Following several earlier authorities, in M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar and others, (2009) 13 SCC 122 : JT 2009 (6) SC 624, the Court said: “The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 16. In Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (6) SCC 481 , the Apex Court had the occasion to consider Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “1974 Rules”) and said: “The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that is faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.” 17. The Court considered that father of appellant Santosh Kumar Dubey became untraceable in 1981 and for about 18 years the family could survive and successfully faced and over came the financial difficulties. In these circumstances it further held: “That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. The Court considered that father of appellant Santosh Kumar Dubey became untraceable in 1981 and for about 18 years the family could survive and successfully faced and over came the financial difficulties. In these circumstances it further held: “That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions.” 18. In I.G. (Karmik) and others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 (6) SCC 162 , the Court said: “Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.” 19. The importance of penury and indigence of the family of the deceased employee and need to provide immediate assistance for compassionate appointment has been considered by the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and another v. B. Kishore, 2011(4) SCALE 308. This is relevant to make the provisions for compassionate appointment valid and constitutional else the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court said: “If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” 20. It is thus clear that rule of compassionate appointment has an object to give relief against destitution. It is not a provision to provide alternate employment or an appointment commensurate with the post held by the deceased employee. It is thus clear that rule of compassionate appointment has an object to give relief against destitution. It is not a provision to provide alternate employment or an appointment commensurate with the post held by the deceased employee. It is not by way of giving similarly placed life to the dependents of the deceased. While considering the provision pertaining to relaxation under 1974 Rules, the very object of compassionate appointment cannot be ignored. This is what has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Madhulika Pathak v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (3) ADJ 91 . The decision in Vivek Yadav (supra) has been considered later on by another Division Bench in Nagesh Chandra v. Chief Engineer, Vivasthan Ga Warg and others, decided on 7th January, 2011 in Special Appeal No. 36 of 2011 and Court said: “Though in the judgment it has been held that when the rules are prevailing for relaxation for making the application, a member of the family, on attaining majority, can file an application for due consideration but in the judgment itself it has been held that the law relating to compassionate appointment is no longer res integra. The right of compassionate appointment does not confer a right but it does give rise to the legitimate expectation in a person covered by the rules that his application should be considered, if otherwise he meets with the requirement.” 21. In the light of the exposition of law, as discussed above, I do not find any reason to issue such a mandamus, as sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 22. The writ petition therefore lacks merit. Dismissed. ——————