ORDER : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. The Director General of Police has filed this appeal against the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru dated 2.7.2015 allowing the application No. 1528/2005 of the respondent Sri. Santosh, who sought compassionate appointment under the provisions of KCS (Appointment on compassionate grounds) (Amended) Rules, 1998. 2. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition filed by the State Government as noticed by the learned Tribunal below are as under: The applicant's father was working in Police Department and he died while in service on 11.10.1981. The respondent Santosh was himself born after the said death of his father on 11.06.1982 and after attaining majority on 11.06.2000, he applied under these Rules seeking the appointment by filing an application on 22.07.2000. His application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi Revenue Division, Belagavi on 09.05.2002 on the ground that the application was barred in terms of Rules 5 and 9 of 1998 Rules. The respondent approached Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by way of aforesaid Application and the Tribunal while allowing the said Application quashed the said order dated 9.5.2002 and directed the Respondent No.3 viz., the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi to consider the application of the respondent Santosh within three months. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent before the Tribunal have preferred this writ petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner State Mr. M. Kumar, argues before the Court that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and being a concession, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the respondent. He submitted that since in the present case, the respondent Santosh was not even born on the relevant date, namely the date of death of his father while in service on 11.10.1981, there is no question of considering his case for compassionate appointment after about 19-20 years, when he attained majority on 11.06.2000 and applied for the such employment under the Rules of 1998 on 22.07.2000. Since the very Rules of 1998 would not be applicable to his case, the amendment of Rule 5 with effect from 01.04.1999, to the effect that an application under such case can be made within one year of attaining majority, would not apply to the facts of the present case at all and therefore the impugned order of the learned Tribunal directing the petitioner -Superintendent of Police, Belagavi to consider his application and case in accordance with amended Rules of 1998 cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ramachandra A. Mali argues before this court that the direction given to the respondent by the Tribunal was only to consider the case and therefore no interference for the same is called for. 5. Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by directing the concerned officer viz. Superintended of Police to consider the application of the petitioner under the Rules of 1998 for compassionate appointment. In view of the glaring facts of the case, viz., on the relevant date, the date of death of the government servant while in service, the applicant - respondent Sri. Santosh was not even born. There is no question of claiming such compassionate employment after his birth and after a period of 18 years thereon when he attained majority. 6. The cause of action or the applicability of the compassionate appointment Rules arises on the date of death of government servant while in service. The purpose of such appointment is to allow the family to tide over the immediate financial crisis, which the family may face on account of death of the sole bread winner of the family, who suddenly dies while in government service. 7. This beneficial legislation with its liberal interpretation cannot be stretched to be applied and extended to the case like the present one before us. In this case, where the applicant concerned was not even available on this earth on the date of unfortunate death of his father. Since the Rules of 1998 themselves thus cannot be invoked in such cases, there cannot be any question of applying the Amended Rule 5 to the present case of present respondent, Santosh. In this case, where the applicant concerned was not even available on this earth on the date of unfortunate death of his father. Since the Rules of 1998 themselves thus cannot be invoked in such cases, there cannot be any question of applying the Amended Rule 5 to the present case of present respondent, Santosh. The respondent therefore, cannot be held entitled to seek the compassionate appointment under these Rules and the very application filed by him before the learned Administrative Tribunal below was very much at belated stage, beyond the scope of the Rules of 1998. 8. In view of the facts available in the present case, the delay cannot be counted from the date of his attaining majority because that is not the date relevant for cause of action to apply the Rules of 1998. The relevant date as aforesaid is the date of death of the government servant and not the date of attaining majority of the eligible candidate under these Rules. Whatever unfortunate circumstances upon such death might have ensued for the family of the deceased government servant at that point of time, for all these periods of 18 - 19 years, when the present respondent after his birth after the death of his father, became major in 2002, such circumstances would have definitely been overcome by the respondent's family. 9. Be that as it may, we are presently not concerned with those facts, in as much as we are of the clear opinion that the grant of compassionate appointment in such case itself is beyond the scope of welfare scheme enacted by the State in the Rules of 1998 for granting compassionate appointment to the member of such families to immediately overcome the financial crisis because of the death of the Government servant. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that no useful purpose could be achieved by directing the concerned Authority to consider his application. 10. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the Authorities of the State deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of the learned Administrative Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.