ORDER : 1. The present appeal arises from order dated 09.09.2013 dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 10467/2013 declining to interfere with the order dated 04.07.2013 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in every case of untimely death of a Government employee, financial benefits flow to the family of the deceased according to the service rules. That per se cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment as also held by the Supreme Court in more than one judgment. There is nothing in the order dated 04.07.2013 to indicate that the respondents had any parameters or index on basis of which any rational assessment was made before declining compassionate appointment because of monetary service benefits given to the family of the deceased under the service rules. No property or other sources of income exists. The claim has been rejected on conjectures and surmises that the deceased must have also made investments in his life time which is factually wrong. Adverting to the second ground that the deceased had only nine months of service left, it was submitted that it was all the more reason as the family was going to be left with no income and the appellant had a brother and his mother to look after with no sources of income as he was unemployed. 3. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the appellant. 4. Compassionate appointment has always been considered an exception to the normal mode of appointment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India by open advertisement and competitive merit selection as employment by the State is considered a national wealth for which adequate opportunities must be available to all eligible for being considered. 5. In limited exceptions, compassionate appointment can be granted due to sudden and untimely death of the bread winner of the family leaving it in distress and penury. It is true that in every case, there will be service benefits available to the family of deceased but that per se cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment because in that case there may be none eligible for the same defeating the very purpose of such appointment. A claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly according to the policy regulating the same. If adequate sources of income are available for survival, compassionate appointment can be denied. A claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly according to the policy regulating the same. If adequate sources of income are available for survival, compassionate appointment can be denied. The order dated 04.07.2013 undoubtedly reflects the satisfaction of the authorities with regard to sources of income for the family from the service benefits of the deceased but it does not refer to or disclose any scheme for rational assessment on that basis to deny compassionate appointment. In every case of untimely death undoubtedly there will be service benefits available. To hold that as a ground alone will therefore not be valid consideration. 6. But those questions have become academic in the facts of the present case, in view of the admitted fact that the deceased died barely nine months before the date of his superannuation. The loss of income in the very near future was therefore visible and a foregone conclusion. It cannot be said that there had been sudden loss of income due to untimely death, as loss of income due to superannuation was an imperative within months. It is difficult to hold in the facts of the case when loss of income in a few months was visible that the family has been left in distress and in penury. In (1999) 7 SCC 672 (West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Samir K. Sarkar) the order directing consideration for compassionate appointment within two years of superannuation was set aside. The appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed.