JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner, who was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), has prayed for quashing of order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Patna Bench), Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 240 of 2011 (R), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the respondent-Railway was not found tenable and as such, the decision of the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been interfered with. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner's father while working as FMI under CCC (Loco)/Bondamunda was found unfit in A1, A2, A3, B1 and B2 medical category, but was found medically fit in C1 and C2 category with glasses. As such, the petitioner's father was screened for alternative job and was offered the alternative job of “Bearer”. However, the petitioner's father refused to accept the said alternative job and instead of the same, he requested for acceptance of his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.08.1987. As per the petitioner, her father's request for voluntary retirement was turned down by the respondent-Railway authorities on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. Subsequently, her father expired on 28.04.1993. Her mother had already died before the said date. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 95,040/- as her pension for the period from 28.04.1993 to 27.04.1999 and thereafter, she was paid an amount of Rs. 35,994/- for the period from 28.04.1999 to 31.01.2001. She was also paid Rs. 10,541/- in respect of gratuity and on later date, an amount of Rs. 1,28,130/- was also paid to her. So far as the period from 02.08.1987 to 27.04.1993 (i.e. the period during which the petitioner's father remained invalid till his death) is concerned, the amount was also subsequently sanctioned in favour of the petitioner being the lawful claimant. However, as per the petitioner, she was not paid family pension from February, 2001 to 05.09.2007, though from 2007 onwards, she has again been paid family pension by the respondent-Railway authorities. 3. However, as per the petitioner, she was not paid family pension from February, 2001 to 05.09.2007, though from 2007 onwards, she has again been paid family pension by the respondent-Railway authorities. 3. The petitioner by filing the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal primarily sought the following two reliefs: (i) Direction upon the respondents for payment of arrears of family pension in favour of the applicant for the period from February, 2001 to 05.09.2007. (ii) Quash the order dated 16.04.2008 issued by the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Chakradharpur rejecting the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. The admitted position before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal was that the petitioner being the dependant unmarried daughter of the deceased employee was his only legal heir and, therefore, she was entitled for compassionate appointment as her father died in harness. She submitted one representation before the Railway authorities on 13.07.2007 requesting the compassionate appointment, however, her request was rejected vide order dated 16.04.2008, on the ground that she had already attained more than 31 years of age and was duly supported by family pension and other amount which was paid to her by the Railway after the death of her father. 5. The respondent-Railway authorities also filed written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal taking a specific stand that the request of the father of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on invalid pension was subsequently accepted w.e.f. 01.08.1987 vide Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/Chakradharpur's Office Order No. VR/2000/124 dated 06.07.2000 and as per Pension Pay Order No. SE/CKP/2001/B-650/PFSE, lifetime Arrears of Pension @ Rs. 423 + A.R. for the period from 02.08.1987 to 27.04.1993 (the period during which the petitioner's father remained invalid) has been paid to the petitioner being his legal heir. It has also been stated by the respondents that the family pension was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for the period from 28.04.1993 to 27.04.1999 at enhanced rate i.e., @ Rs. 1320 + A.R. and also from 28.04.1999 to 31.01.2001 at the normal rate i.e. @ Rs. 1714 + A.R. The respondent-Railway authorities also stated before the Central Administrative Tribunal that as per Rule 75(6)(iii) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the family pension in case of unmarried daughter was payable till she attains the age of 25 years or till she gets married whichever is earlier. 1714 + A.R. The respondent-Railway authorities also stated before the Central Administrative Tribunal that as per Rule 75(6)(iii) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the family pension in case of unmarried daughter was payable till she attains the age of 25 years or till she gets married whichever is earlier. Since the present petitioner's date of birth is 01.02.1976, she had attained 25 years of age on 31.01.2001 and, therefore, in view of the said Rules, her family pension was subsequently stopped. 6. Further stand of the respondent-Railway authorities before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal was that subsequently, the Railway Board vide its letter No. F(E)III/2007/PN1/5 dated 18.09.2007 circulated under South Eastern Railway's Establishment Serial No. 163/2007 specifically stipulated that family pension of an unmarried daughter beyond 25 years of age shall be admissible from the date of issue of instructions of DOP & PW (Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare) i.e. 06.09.2007 or from the date on which her turn of family pension materializes, whichever is later. Accordingly, P.P.O. No. SE/CKP/PEN/2009/B-841/PF-Eco 867 was issued in favour of the petitioner wherein she was sanctioned Rs. 3500 + Additional Relief w.e.f. 06.09.2007. 7. So far as the claim of the petitioner for her entitlement for family pension for the period from February, 2001 to 05.09.2007 is concerned, we are of the considered view that the petitioner was paid family pension from the date of death of her father till she attained the age of 25 years as per the existing Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Subsequently, under the new Railway instructions of DOP & PW, a provision was introduced that a family pension of unmarried daughter beyond 25 years of age, shall be admissible from the date of issue of instructions dated 06.09.2007 or from the date on which her turn for family pension materializes, whichever is later. Subsequently, under the new Railway instructions of DOP & PW, a provision was introduced that a family pension of unmarried daughter beyond 25 years of age, shall be admissible from the date of issue of instructions dated 06.09.2007 or from the date on which her turn for family pension materializes, whichever is later. Since the aforesaid instruction was not given retrospective effect and it clearly stipulates that the family pension to an unmarried daughter will be admissible from the date on which her turn for family pension materializes, or the date of issuance of instructions i.e., 06.09.2007, whichever is later, we find that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the petitioner could not have been given any pension between the period from February, 2001 to 05.09.2007, as the rules applicable at that point of time did not permit the same. We also find that the petitioner has never put challenge to the aforesaid circular/instruction issued by the Railway. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the family pension for the intervening period i.e. February, 2001 to 05.09.2007. 8. Now, let us analyse the issue as to whether the petitioner could have been granted compassionate appointment by the respondent-Railway authorities. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal committed a serious error in not appreciating the fact that the Railway authorities could not have rejected the application for her compassionate appointment, on the ground that she was supported by the retiral dues of her father as well as her family pension during all these years. 10. For considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to go through the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the issue relating to compassionate appointment in detail and has held that while pension and other retiral dues may not be the sole criteria for rejecting of a case for compassionate appointment, but the same may also be taken into account for assessing the overall financial condition of the family of the deceased employee. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal has also appreciated the fact that the respondent-Railway authorities, while rejecting claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, have taken into consideration the liabilities of the family of the deceased employee and also the fact that the petitioner being the sole dependant, was getting family pension in addition to the amount she received on account of other admissible dues of her father and thus, there had been no such financial crisis with the petitioner. 11. In Union Bank of India & Ors. vs. M.T. Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 31. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1995 (1) PLJR (SC) 102 this Court considered a case of compassionate appointment and the factors necessary for being taken into account before offering compassionate appointment. This Court held that merely death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate employment and that the authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the employee's death. This Court also held as under: “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family as post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.” 12. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India (supra) and Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), we find no error in such observations of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India (supra) and Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), we find no error in such observations of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order. 13. Here, it would also be worth noticing that though the father of the petitioner expired on 28.04.1993, the petitioner being the sole dependant, though made due endeavour for getting the retiral dues of her father and the family pension, yet there is no document on record to suggest that she made any application for getting compassionate appointment before 2007, which led to passing of the order dated 16.04.2008 by the respondent-Railway authorities, rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment. 14. The purpose of compassionate appointment has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin, (2003) 7 SCC 511 : 2003 (4) JLJR (SC) 88, while considering all relevant judicial pronouncements with regard to the purpose of compassionate appointment, has held as under: "10. As was observed in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr. (1996) 5 SCC 308 , it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of a sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter or right. Die-in-Harness Scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased-employee. In Rani Devi's case (supra) it was held that Scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and Anr. In Rani Devi's case (supra) it was held that Scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 718 , it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 that as a rule public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of an employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 468 , it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689 and Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 476 . In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. The above view was reiterated in Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689 and Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 476 . In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 192 , it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for grant of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased-employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. 12. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412 , it was held that the purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government servant dying-in-harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time. In that case also the delay was 17 years." 15. In State of J&K & Ors. vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "11. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time. In that case also the delay was 17 years." 15. In State of J&K & Ors. vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought “compassion” the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution." 16. It will emerge from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements that the purpose of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and the sole purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the immediate hardship being faced by the bereaved family due to the death of the employee being the only breadwinner in the family. If on the factual aspect of the case, it appears that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived for a long period of time, there is no need to take recourse to an exception to the normal rule of appointment i.e. the compassionate appointment. 17. If on the factual aspect of the case, it appears that inspite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived for a long period of time, there is no need to take recourse to an exception to the normal rule of appointment i.e. the compassionate appointment. 17. In the present case, the petitioner, though being an unmarried daughter of the deceased Railway employee, has been able to mitigate the financial hardships over a long period of time since 1993 i.e. for more than two decades, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 240 of 2011 (R). 18. The writ petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed.