ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent vide Memo No. 133 dated 06.12.2016 at Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit passed by the Mineral Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the MADA). 3. The father of the petitioner namely Late Shabir Ahmad Usmani died on 26.01.2007 during service period, who was working under the respondents in the post of Office In-charge. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner, who is legally married wife, had filed a representation before the respondent-authorities for appointment on compassionate ground for her son-Afzal Ahmad Usmani (the present petitioner). The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, but when the petitioner became major, mother of the petitioner by filing a representation dated 16.6.2010 had approached before the respondent-authorities for appointment of his son on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband. But no heed was paid by the respondent-authorities. Again on 19.01.2012, the mother of the petitioner had filed another representation before the respondent-authorities for appointment on compassionate ground for her son but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the death of the father of the petitioner in harness, he deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground as he fulfilled all requisite criteria made for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner also submits that in similar cases other appointments have been given by MADA on compassionate ground but no order has been passed by the respondent-authorities in favour of the present petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, is not tenable in the eyes of law. 5. Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents-MADA vehemently opposes the prayer for the petitioner and submits that MADA is facing acute financial crisis as a result of which even the admissible salary and the post retiral benefits of the employees are also not released within time. As a matter of policy decision dated 24.09.2010 MADA is not giving compassionate appointment to any person from the year 2011 onwards, as such MADA is facing acute financial crisis. 6. As a matter of policy decision dated 24.09.2010 MADA is not giving compassionate appointment to any person from the year 2011 onwards, as such MADA is facing acute financial crisis. 6. Having considered the reasons stated in the impugned order and in view of the fact that MADA is facing acute financial crisis and as a matter of policy decision they have stopped giving appointment to any of the employee, this Court cannot direct or issue mandamus to the respondents for giving compassionate appointment. It has been held in Catena of decisions that compassionate appointment is not a right and the matter has already been considered by the MADA by passing a reasoned order against the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 7. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.