ORDER : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10007/15, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petition. 2. We have heard Mr. Chauhan with Mr. Solanki for the appellant. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that when the petitioner-appellant was offered compassionate appointment, because of the customary restriction, she did not join the duty and she had also communicated that the right be reserved for her minor sons. Thereafter, in the year 2010, she applied and her case was recommended for monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. But the same is also not considered by the competent authority and the application is rejected. It was submitted that upon the application of the original petitioner, recommendation was made by the concerned head of the department, but the competent authority declined the proposal for lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge did not properly consider the matter. Hence, this Court may consider in the present appeal. 4. In our view, the learned Single Judge is right in considering that the essential purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide financial support by way of solace upon the death of the Government employee. In the year 2000, when the compassionate appointment was offered, the appellant did not opt for it. Such shows that she was not desirous to have the financial support through employment. The attempt made to contend that on account of the customary restrictions she could not join the duty cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that she was offered class-IV appointment and there is no prohibition in law that the appellant could not accept the appointment. Further, other legal heirs, viz., sons of the deceased were minor and under these circumstances, even otherwise also, compassionate appointment could not be given to the minor son or daughter. 5. Once the application was considered and decided and compassionate appointment was offered and she did not opt for it, the right would come to an end. Hence, the authority rightly decided that it is not a case where the matter can be considered for lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. 5. Once the application was considered and decided and compassionate appointment was offered and she did not opt for it, the right would come to an end. Hence, the authority rightly decided that it is not a case where the matter can be considered for lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. If in aforesaid aspect is considered read with the observations made by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that any case is made out for interference. Hence, the appeal is meritless and therefore, dismissed.