JUDGMENT: Rohit Arya, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has approached this Court against rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment communicated to him by the impugned order dated 15/4/2015. 2. The policy issued by the State Government dated 18/8/2008 is brought on record for the purpose of the claim for compassionate appointment. The policy inter alia provides under clause 4 that following categories of persons shall not be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Relevant sub-clause (1) thereof reads as under:-- 3. By the impugned communication it has been shown that at the time of death of father of petitioner his one son was already in government employment and, therefore, petitioner was not found eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. That apart, after the death of his brother, namely, Rajkumar on 16/10/2013, his son Sushant Singh has also been provided with the compassionate appointment, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts, petitioner was not found eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that his brother was in the public employment independently and, therefore, he was not dependent on the father and consequently after death of his brother-Rajkumar his son-Sushant Singh has got the appointment on compassionate ground. Appointment of his brother's son on compassionate ground could not be a reason or justification to deny the petitioner appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Having considered the submissions so advanced, it is considered apposite to take a re-look to the concept of compassionate appointment as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is a settled law that compassionate appointment is not a right of an individual. Such appointments are provided to the dependents of an employee who has died in harness and the family is in penury. It is only to tied over the crisis, provisions for compassionate appointment have been made in Government as well as other private and public sector departments. In some departments or banks now the provisions of compassionate appointment are done away with, instead ex gratia payments are being made to the dependents. In this case, admittedly father of the petitioner, namely, Kailashnarayan had died as early as on 2/2/2013; more than two years' period has passed by, therefore, family cannot be said to be in penury. In some departments or banks now the provisions of compassionate appointment are done away with, instead ex gratia payments are being made to the dependents. In this case, admittedly father of the petitioner, namely, Kailashnarayan had died as early as on 2/2/2013; more than two years' period has passed by, therefore, family cannot be said to be in penury. That apart, there is no dispute as regards the fact that petitioner also had a real brother, namely, Rajkumar. Rajkumar at the time of death of Kailashnarayan was in public employment serving in the same department as Constable. Rajkumar has died on 16/10/2013. Due to death of Rajkumar, mother of petitioner submitted an application for petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground and at the same time the widow of Rajkumar, namely, Smt. Neetu had also applied for providing compassionate appointment to her son, namely, Sushant Singh. Sushant Singh has been provided with the compassionate appointment. 6. Now if this Court looks at the clause which deals with the ineligibility of a person for appointment on compassionate ground, it is evident that the words used in this clause relate to family of the deceased employee. The meaning to the word 'family' has to be given in common parlance. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the family of the deceased-Kailashnarayan shall be treated to be consisting of his sons, wife and grandsons. At the time of death of Kailashnarayan, his one son-Rajkumar was very much in service, therefore, at the time of death of Kailashnarayan there was no occasion for consideration of the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. After the death of Rajkumar, since two applications were filed; one by the mother of the petitioner seeking petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground and another by the widow of Rajkumar seeking compassionate appointment of her son-Sushant Singh, Sushant Singh has been provided with the compassionate appointment. Under such circumstances, no right exists upon the petitioner to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the authorities were justified having denied the claim of petitioner in the light of provisions contained in sub-clause (1) of clause 4 of the policy annexed with the writ petition appearing at page 25. 7. The Writ Petition is misconceived and sans merits. Dismissed.