JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner herein is seeking compassionate appointment for her son, Ishwar Singh, on account of death of her husband.The facts in short are that the husband of the petitioner died way back on 24.8.1996. The elder son of the petitioner, Kishore Singh, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The same was denied by the respondents vide order dated 13.02.2001. The son of the petitioner challenged the same vide CWP No.2348/2003. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.1.2014 with the following observations:- "In view of aforesaid factual position that both the sons of the deceased employee have secured their different respective jobs, a liberty is given to the petitioner's mother Smt. Ramu Devi that she may apply to the respondent Punjab National Bank for job and if any a suitable opening can be found by the competent authority of the respondent Bank for her employment, the same may be considered by the Bank in accordance with law and her representation may be decided after giving an opportunity of hearing to her in two months from today." 2. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the prayer for appointment of Kishore Singh was not accepted and liberty was given to the present petitioner, who is mother of the said Kishore Singh, to move an appropriate representation for her appointment on compassionate ground. The son of the petitioner, Kishore Singh, filed S.B.Civil Review Petition No.98/2014 seeking appointment for his younger brother Ishwar Singh. The review petition was dismissed on 29.09.2014 as under:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out seeking review of the order dated 03.01.2014. By the impugned order dated 03.01.2014, the writ petition filed by the present petitioner [SBCWP No.2348/2003 Kishore Singh v. The G.M.Human Resources Department, PNB & Ors. was disposed of with a direction and liberty to the mother of the petitioner to move suitable representation to the respondent Punjab National Bank and the respondent Punjab National Bank was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed." 3. In pursuance to the order dated 3.1.2014 passed in CWP No.2348/2003, the petitioner filed a representation seeking compassionate appointment for her younger son, Ishwar Singh, instead of herself. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed." 3. In pursuance to the order dated 3.1.2014 passed in CWP No.2348/2003, the petitioner filed a representation seeking compassionate appointment for her younger son, Ishwar Singh, instead of herself. However, the said representation was rejected by the respondent-Bank vide order dated 22.11.2014. 4. While seeking the compassionate appointment for Ishwar Singh, the petitioner's younger son, the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected ignoring the direction of this Court. It is stated that the respondents are adamant not to consider the direction of the High Court. 5. The impugned order has been perused by this Court. This Court finds that the said representation has been duly considered. The writ petition filed by Kishore Singh was dismissed with liberty to the present petitioner to file suitable representation to the respondent-Bank and the respondent-Bank was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. The petitioner instead of seeking employment for herself sought employment on behalf of her son Ishwar Singh. Moreover, it is the own case of the petitioner that she is illiterate lady having problem of vision and is unable to join duties. She is also a pardanaseen lady. The prayer for granting appointment to the son of the petitioner i.e. Ishwar Singh also stood rejected in view of the order dated 29.9.2014 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Review Petition No.98/2014. The prayer of the petitioner for appointment of Ishwar Singh on compassionate ground was also considered by the Department in pursuance to her representation. Her prayer was rejected on the ground that the scheme did not exist any more with the further observation that the purpose of the scheme is to help tide over the sudden crisis brought about by the death of the earning family member and to offer job to the bereaved family to recover from the deprivation of the income of the breadwinner. Two sons of the petitioner already stand gainfully employed. The writ petition filed by son of the petitioner, Kishore Singh, was simply disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move application before the appropriate authority. Moreover, the review petition seeking compassionate appointment to the third son of petitioner i.e. Ishwar Singh was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2014. The writ petition filed by son of the petitioner, Kishore Singh, was simply disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move application before the appropriate authority. Moreover, the review petition seeking compassionate appointment to the third son of petitioner i.e. Ishwar Singh was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2014. The said order was never challenged and the same has become final. 6. The Apex Court in the matter of compassionate appointment in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Paras Nath, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412 in somewhat similar circumstances held in para 5 as under:- 5. 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." 7. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner died way back in the year 1996. It is evident that the family has managed to overcome their immediate financial difficulties. Two of her sons already stand employed and settled. 8. Applying the test laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Paras Nath (supra), no ground for interference is made out.Dismissed accordingly.Petition Dismissed. *******