JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Deepak Sharma holding brief of Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned counsel for official respondents as well as learned State Counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the petitioner’s father Sri Mahendra Singh who was a driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Azamgarh placed under suspension and when he was under suspension, died on 30.10.1999. As there is no member to earn the livelihood of the deceased family who is harness so on 10.1.2007, an application has been moved by the petitioner (Annexure 6) to the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporatoin, Azamgarh to consider his case for compassionate appointment but but no heed has been paid. Hence, for redrsssal of his grievance, present writ petition has been fled before this Court with the prayer to direct the competent authority to consider his case for compassionate appointment. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. The aim and object to give appointment on compassionate basis is not a matter of right in the sense that it is not a normal recognized source of recruitment but considering the factum of sudden demise of the Government Servant leaving his family in destitute, particularly when the said Government Servant is the sole bread earner, in order to save the family from such misery, if any scheme or rules have been made by the employer for providing appointment on compassionate basis, such appointment would not be invalid. However, since the purpose of such an appointment is to save the family of deceased employee from penury it is not a right conferred upon the harness of the deceased employee to claim a post against post but contemplate an employment only to save the bereaved family and not more than that. 5. In the case of Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 , the Apex Court while considering the object of granting compassionate appointment observed as under : “The purpose of providing appointment 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.” 6. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.” 6. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (10) SC 156 : AIR 2000 SC 2782 , the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment is provided only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left the family in penury without any means of livelihood but it cannot be treated to be a reserved vacancy for the dependents of the deceased Government Servant who died in harness. 7. In State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin, 2003 (7) SCC 511 : AIR 2003 SC 3794 , the Apex Court reiterated that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is only to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death in service, only to alleviate the distress of the family but at a belated stage, as these grounds are no more in existence, therefore, the employment cannot be claimed or provided. 8. In National Institute of Technology and others v. Niraj K’r Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 : AIR 2007 SC 1155 , the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted with approval a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. D. Gopaiath, (2002) 93 FLR 12 (AP) (FB), wherein it was observed “by reason of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, great hopes and aspirations were generated in the minds of the people of India that employment shall not be given on descent” and then said that it is only an exception and that too limited to mitigate the hardship of the bereaved family. 9. In State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, JT 2007 (3) SC 35 : 2007 AIR SCW 1044, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 27 observed as under : “Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made.” 10. In General Manager State Bank of India and others v. Anju Jain, 2008 (11) SCALE 647 : 2008 (6) ALJ 235, the Court held as under: “Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made.” 10. In General Manager State Bank of India and others v. Anju Jain, 2008 (11) SCALE 647 : 2008 (6) ALJ 235, the Court held as under: “Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when an appointment is to be made in Government or semi-Government or in public offices, cases of all eligible candidates must he considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to demise of sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of recruitment.” 11. 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 Dependents of Government Servants Dying in harness Rules, 1974 and held as under: “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.” 18. 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.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey (supra) considering the facts that if the family could survive and successfully faced and over came the financial difficulties for some years then there is no justification to give compassionate appointment and held as under: “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.” 12. 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.” 13. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and another v. B. Kishore, 2011(4) SCALE 308 and held as under : “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.” 14. 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. (See also Smt. Madhulika Pathak v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (3) ADJ 91 ) 15. Further in the case of Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, JT 2011 (4) SC 30, the Apex Court has held that: “....there is a far more basic flaw in the view taken by the Division Bench in that it is completely divorced from the object and purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointments. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succor to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasized is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. In this case the Respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on July 2, 1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father’s death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service. In the facts of the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakshisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, the case of the Respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments.” 16. In present case the petitioner’s father died in year 1999 and effective application was submitted by petitioner in the year 2007 i.e. after more than seven years. If with this lag of time, this Court issues any direction or mandamus to respondents to consider petitioner for compassionate appointment or to provide the same, I have no reason to doubt that ex facie it would be a travesty of justice and would wholly defeat the very scheme, objective and purpose of compassionate appointment. Atleast this Court would not be a party to such kind of unlawful order. Atleast this Court would not be a party to such kind of unlawful order. No compassion or sympathy or whatever as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner would impress this Court to give a verdict in the fitness of spirit of constitutional and statutory scheme of nature of dispute like compassionate appointment. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed as such. 18. No order as to cost. ———————