JUDGMENT Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that the writ petitioner is essentially seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the died-in-harness category. 3. Earlier, the writ petitioner had approached this Court which had passed an order dated 10th February, 2010, in W. P. 14444 (W) of 2009. In terms of the said order, the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Birbhum, took up the matter for consideration and passed an order dated 10th June, 2010, relevant portion whereof reads as follows : “Considered the representation of the petitioner and he is hereby directed to submit the application in the proper Format as stipulated in the order of the Labour Deptt., Govt. of West Bengal vide Memo No. – 303/EMP/1M-10/2000, dated 21/08/2002 through the Block Development Officer, Murarai-II Block & Executive Officer, Murarai-II Panchayat Samiti who in turn is directed to send the application with the three Men’s Enquiry Report and other relevant documents to the D.P. & R.D.O., Birbhum by 30th June, 2010. The representation of the petitioner is thus disposed of and the order of the Hon’ble Court, Calcutta dated -10/02/2010 is thus complied with.” 4. Subsequent to the above direction, the writ petitioner applied in the proper format, but the concerned authority rejected the application. Such rejection is now the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 5. From the writ petitioner’s own admission, as contained in his representation dated 28th July, 2011, he was a minor at the time of death of his father. A minor cannot seek appointment on compassionate ground. On the date of death of the writ petitioner’s father, i.e., 22nd November, 1997, the writ petitioner was only twelve years old. As such, he possibly could not have been considered for appointment to any government/public post at that point of time. A subsequent application, made many years later, upon attaining majority, cannot possibly be considered retrospectively, unless the rules relating to such compassionate appointment specifically allow such retrospective effect to be given to the application. 6. In the facts of the instant case, it is no one’s case that there exists any such rule or guideline which would allow such application to be considered, upon giving it a retrospective effect. 6. In the facts of the instant case, it is no one’s case that there exists any such rule or guideline which would allow such application to be considered, upon giving it a retrospective effect. In any event, appointment on compassionate ground is purely discretionary in nature and it is well settled that such appointment is granted to allow a deceased employee’s family to overcome any immediate or acute financial crisis, which could otherwise reduce the family to the streets with a begging bowl in hand in a state of penury. The essence of such appointment is, thus, only for the purpose of granting immediate relief for such specific cause and not for the purpose of granting employment to a family member of a deceased employee several years after his/her death, merely because the employee had died-in-harness. It cannot be envisaged, by any stretch of imagination, that an application for compassionate appointment can be entertained by any authority after eight years from the date of death of the concerned employee in the absence of any specific rule or guideline to that effect. 7. For reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the instant matter, which is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.