ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to give suitable compassionate appointment in place of his father, who was working in erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (now SBI). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as Arm Guard and posted at Gangapur-city and unfortunately, he expired on 04.06.1997. The petitioner has asserted that he was living with his father and other brothers of the petitioners were living separately and as such, the petitioner was only dependent on his father. The petitioner after death of his father submitted a letter for compassionate appointment by writing to Regional Manager on 20.06.1997. The petitioner asserted that his representation did not yield any result and ultimately he had served a notice for demand of justice and then, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-appointment of the petitioner is contrary to provisions of law and the right of the petitioner of compassionate appointment has been taken away without any justification. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines framed by the respondents made the petitioner entitled for compassionate appointment as there was no objection by the other family members and the petitioner being dependent on his father, was entitled for such appointment. 5. The learned counsel has further argued that the provisions for offering compassionate appointment has been framed with the object to provide employment to the dependents of the deceased Bank servant who died while in service and the spirit of the provision has completely been overlooked by the respondents. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner right from the first stage has not given the correct facts to the Bank and while submitting application (Annex.2), he has written that they were four brothers and they all were unemployed and there was no source of income for the family and as such, the petitioner has sought appointment on compassionate ground after seeking no objection from other brothers. The counsel submits that in subsequent application on 09.04.1999 (Annex.3), the petitioner had disclosed that his two brothers were daily wagers and on brother was employed as class-IV employee in the government service. The counsel submits that in subsequent application on 09.04.1999 (Annex.3), the petitioner had disclosed that his two brothers were daily wagers and on brother was employed as class-IV employee in the government service. The counsel submits that as per own version of the petitioner, his one of the brother was already employed in government service. 7. The learned counsel has further submitted that guidelines issued b; the Government of India dated 10.09.1998 and 03.11.1998 which were being followed at the relevant time by the Bank also provided that the right to compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the other circumstances of each case are looked into like income of the members t the family already employed, the size of the family etc. The counsel submit that since three members of the petitioner's family were earning members an one out of them was government servant and as such, considering the financial status of the family and amount of family pension, gratuity contribution of PF received by the family members, the entire case of the petitioner was considered and not found in order for offering appointment. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. In the opinion of the Court there has been no illegality on the part of the respondent in not offering the compassionate appointment to the petitions The employment of one of the brother in government service is such a fact which is required to be kept in mind by the Bank and as per their policy, the) have not offered appointment to the petitioner. Moreover, considering the financial benefits which have been conferred on the rest of the family members, also do not make the petitioner entitled for compassionate appointment. 9. It is further to be noticed that the deceased-father of the petitions expired on 04.06.1997 and after a lapse of 20 years now, the offer of compassionate appointment will be defeating the provisions, for which the compassionate appointment, guidelines/rules have been framed. The Bank while considering the entire case has also kept in mind that family can survive for long time after death of government servant. The very purpose of offering compassionate appointment is to be tied over the financial crisis which are created due to death of bread earner. 10. The Bank while considering the entire case has also kept in mind that family can survive for long time after death of government servant. The very purpose of offering compassionate appointment is to be tied over the financial crisis which are created due to death of bread earner. 10. In the instant case, the father of the petitioner died in the year 1997 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2000 and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.