JUDGMENT Shanti Devi and another are before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 25.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 43417 of 2011 (Shanti Devi and another Vs. CJM, Obra Thermal Power) wherein learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the premises that in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment there is nothing like vested right and there is no occasion or reason to issue directives to the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner appellant no. 2 at this juncture of life. 2. Record in question is reflecting that father of petitioner appellant no. 2 was working as Beldar in the office of Obra Colony Civil Maintenance Division-III, Obra, Sonebhadra and he had died in harness on 18.4.1994 and it is being claimed that at that said point of time petitioner appellant no. 2 was only three years old and then petitioner appellant no.1 has proceeded to make an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 9.6.1994 before respondent no.3 and as there was complete inaction on the part of authorities concerned in taking the decision on the said application, writ petition no. 31947 of 2010 has been filed before this Court and this Court on 27.5.2010 has proceeded to pass an order asking the authorities concerned to take decision in the matter and, thereafter, the authority concerned, in his wisdom, has proceeded to take decision on 8.2.2011 wherein claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected and same has impelled the petitioner appellants to be before this Court by preferring writ petition No. 43417 of 2011 and the learned Single Judge has not found favour with the arguments, so advanced, and, in view of this, has proceeded to turn down the request of petitioner appellants and thus impelling the petitioner appellants to be once again before this Court. 3. Sri Ram Sheel Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner appellants, is submitting before this Court that the family in question even till today is running through crisis and they have not at all been in a position to overcome with the crisis in question and, accordingly, this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner appellants, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4. 4. Sri A.K. Mehrotra, Advocate, on the other hand, has countered the said submission by submitting that the object of providing compassionate appointment is to save the family from immediate crisis and grant of compassionate appointment does not confer any indefeasible right for being offered appointment for all times to come. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation that is so emerging is that date of death of father of petitioner appellant no. 2 is 18.4.1994 and admittedly petitioner appellant no. 2 claims that at the said point of time he was only three years old and for the first time application for grant of compassionate appointment has been moved on 18.6.1994 and this is also accepted position that petitioner appellant no. 1 has been before this Court in the year 2010 by preferring writ petition No. 31947 of 2010 wherein this Court has proceeded to direct the authority concerned to take a call, thereafter, the authority concerned has proceeded to take a call and has proceeded to turn down the request vide order dated 8.2.2011. 6. The order dated 8.2.2011 does not suffer from any infirmity for the simple reason that object of providing of compassionate appointment to save the family from immediate crisis and here the sequence of events speaking for itself that the date of death of father of petitioner appellant no. 2 is 18.4.1994, application for grant of compassionate appointment has been moved after 10 years, the first writ petition in question has been filed before this Court in the year 2010 and orders for taking decision in the said matter has been passed on 27.5.2010, then in our considered opinion also granting of any relief to the petitioner appellants would be running to the counter of very object for which compassionate appointment is to be provided for, in view of this, special appeal is also sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly, for the same set of reasons, that have been indicated by the learned Single Judge and for the same set of principals, that have been followed by the learned Single Judge in the cases of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Rani Devi and Anr (1996) 5 SCC 308 , Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 468 , State of J. & K. vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, 2006 AIR SCW 3708 .