Per Mansoor, J.;— 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 912/2004, titled as, Rahul Dogra v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd & ors., 2011 (2) JKJ HC-106 whereby and where-under the appellants-writ respondents have been directed to accord consideration to the case of writ-petitioner afresh for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the rules and regulations (for short, impugned judgment), on the grounds taken in it. 2. In order to understand the case of the parties, it would be profitable to give flashback of the case, the womb of which has been given birth to the instant appeal. 3. Late Sh. Bodh Raj, an employee of Power Grid Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter for short, Corporation), passed away on 01.04.2003 at his residential quarter al Power Grid Colony, Kishanpur. The deceased on the fateful day went to his official residence during lunch break for taking lunch, where he developed severe chest pain, but before he could be admitted in the hospital, he died in the mid-way while being taken to the District Hospital, Udhampur in the Ambulance of the Corporation. Writ petitioner, respondent herein, being his son applied before the Corporation for his appointment on compassionate grounds. However, his case was rejected on the ground that the death of his father was not as a result of accident on duty. 4. Feeling aggrieved, writ petitioner filed a writ petition questioning the order of rejection. It would be appropriate to reproduce the order of rejection herein: "We are in receipt of your application dated 28.04.2003 regarding consideration of employment in POWERGRID. In this regard, it is intimated that we have examined the case at our end, and as per the policy of the Corporation, we consider employment to one of the dependant family members of employees who dies or gets permanently disabled as a result of accident while on duty. As the death of Late Bodh Raj, Emp. No. 16389, ST. Driver is not result of accident while on duty, we, therefore, are not in a position to consider your request for compassionate employment in POWERGRID." 5. While going through the order of rejection, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the case of the writ petitioner was not considered at all. No. 16389, ST. Driver is not result of accident while on duty, we, therefore, are not in a position to consider your request for compassionate employment in POWERGRID." 5. While going through the order of rejection, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the case of the writ petitioner was not considered at all. He was conveyed vide communication dated 22.08.2003, impugned in the writ petition, that his case for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be considered because the death of his father was not the result of accident while on duty. Thus, the writ petitioner was shown the door by the appellants-writ respondents without passing the speaking order. 6. It is the admitted case of the appellants that the deceased was in the employment of the Corporation, who during lunch break felt severe chest pain, was shifted to the District Hospital, Udhampur in the Ambulance of the Corporation, died mid way before he could be admitted in the Hospital. 7. Now the question arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants-writ respondents were within their power to decline to consider the case of writ petitioner. The answer is in negative for the following reasons: 8. In terms of the mandate of Rules and Regulations, the appellants were under legal obligation to consider the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner and to pass a detailed order, but without application of mind and without going through the merits of the case have rejected the case of the writ petitioner with one stroke of the pen on the ground that the death of his father was not a result of accident. 9. Appellants in Paragraph 10 of the objections to the writ petition have admitted that they have granted compassionate appointment to the legal representatives of employees who died because of ailment. It would be relevant to reproduce the said paragraph hereunder: "10. Contents of Paragraph No. 10 are denied as incorrect. The petitioner is not right in contending that employment on compassionate grounds is given in all the cases of death in harness. In respect of the cases cited by the petitioner, it is submitted that in case of Sh. G. C. Anand and Smt. Paramjil Kour Wd/o Sh. Darshan Singh, employee of the Corporation, the compassionate appointment had been provided because death in both these cases had occurred in accident while on duty. In respect of the cases cited by the petitioner, it is submitted that in case of Sh. G. C. Anand and Smt. Paramjil Kour Wd/o Sh. Darshan Singh, employee of the Corporation, the compassionate appointment had been provided because death in both these cases had occurred in accident while on duty. The case of Smt. Sita Sharma W/o Late Subash Chander, had been found to be a case where the widow of the deceased was without any source of income and sustenance. The authorities of the Corporation had found the case to be a special case warranting special consideration of the Corporation. The petitioner's case is materially different from the case of Sh. Subash Sharma and in any case consideration to Subash Sharma as a special case cannot be claimed by the petitioner on any ground whatsoever. Regarding the case of Smt. Ranjit Kour it is submitted that the husband of Ranjit Kour was posted in militancy infested area of Srinagar (Kashmir) where he could not keep his family because of which he suffered badly in his health and ultimately succumbed to the illness. This case too was treated by the Corporation as a very special case. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of these cases. Rest of the contents of the paragraph are vague and ambiguous, hence denied." 10. Thus, on their own showing, the appellants-writ respondents have rejected the claim of writ petitioner mechanically and without any justification/reason made the communication, impugned in the writ petition, refusing to consider the case of respondent-writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds. It is a settled legal position that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of making appointment with the object to enable the families of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crises. But, it appears the appellants-writ respondents, have made the writ petitioner to run from pillar to post and post to pillar without any ground while denying him appointment on compassionate grounds. The Writ Court has rightly directed the appellants-writ respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner afresh for grant of compassionate appointment. 11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment is legal one and well reasoned, needs no interference. The Writ Court has rightly directed the appellants-writ respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner afresh for grant of compassionate appointment. 11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment is legal one and well reasoned, needs no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with all connected CMAs with costs of rupees ten thousand payable to the writ petitioner by the appellants-writ respondents within a period of two months from today.