JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The present petitions have been preferred by the Union of India assailing the common order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application Nos. 461 of 2012 & 454 of 2012 preferred by respondent No.2-Jeewanti @ Jiwa Devi, wife of late Shri Gopal Dutt Tiwari. 2. The Tribunal has allowed the said Original Applications filed by her, and directed the petitioners to treat her at par with Smt. Chandra Devi Bhatt and grant her family pension as well as compassionate appointment to her son-Lalit Mohan Tiwari, if he fulfills all the eligibility criteria as per law. The petitioners were also directed to pay interest @ 8% on the delayed payment of family pension from the date of the entitlement till the date of actual payment within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 3. The impugned order has not been complied with by the petitioners during the pendency of these petitions, which have been pending since the year 2016. 4. The husband of respondent No. 2-Gopal Dutt Tiwari was initially appointed as a Chaukidar on 05.05.1985 by the Sub-Divisional Inspector, Nainital. He joined in that capacity on 01.08.1985 in Sub Post Office, Garampani as casual labour i.e. casual postal employee. Upon completion of three years’ continuous service, he was treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, and was entitled to the benefits admissible to Group ‘D’ employees. Thereafter, he was treated at par with Group ‘D’ employees from 29.11.1992, even for payment of his salary. Since then, he was placed in the regular pay-scale of Group ‘D’ employees and was given all the benefits of revised pay-scale from time to time of Group ‘D’ employees, and drew his salary till July, 2004. He unfortunately passed away while in harness, on 21.08.2004. 5. Upon the demise of her husband, respondent No.2 sought family pension and compassionate appointment for her son. These reliefs were denied to her by the petitioners on the ground that late Shri Gopal Dutt Tiwari was not regularized in his service, and since he was not a regular employee, his successors were not entitled to family pension or even to claim compassionate appointment. Since the claim of respondent No. 2 was rejected by the petitioners, she preferred the Original Applications, in which the impugned order has been passed. Since the claim of respondent No. 2 was rejected by the petitioners, she preferred the Original Applications, in which the impugned order has been passed. Prior to preferring the said Original Applications, she had filed another Original Application being O.A. No. 1499 of 2011, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to decide her representation. As that representation was rejected on 01.02.2012, the same was assailed in the Original Applications in question, i.e. O.A. Nos. 461 of 2012 & 454 of 2012. 6. Before the CAT, Respondent No. 2 cited the case of another similarly situated person to submit that in that case the petitioners herein had complied with the order passed by the Tribunal on 21.07.2000. That was the case of Smt. Chandra Devi Bhatt vs. Union of India and others. In that case as well, late husband of Chandra Devi Bhatt had joined the same Department, in the same capacity. Her husband had rendered sixteen years of service before dying in harness. Since she, too, was denied family pension and compassionate appointment, she preferred the aforesaid Original Application, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 21.07.2000. The petitioners herein accepted the order passed in the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt, and complied with the same and did not challenge the said order before this Court. 7. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the petitioners were seeking to discriminate against respondent No. 2 vis-à-vis the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt. In the case of respondent No. 2, her husband had rendered more than 19 years of continuous service, as compared to the late husband of Chandra Devi Bhatt, who had rendered 16 years of continuous service. 8. It is in the aforesaid light that the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that late Shri Gopal Dutt Tiwari was not a regular employee and, therefore, respondent No. 2 was not entitled to family pension, or to seek compassionate appointment for her son. He places reliance on the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short, ‘CCS (Pension) Rules’) and, in particular, on Rule 2 thereof, relevant extract of which is placed on record. The same reads as follows:- “2. He places reliance on the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short, ‘CCS (Pension) Rules’) and, in particular, on Rule 2 thereof, relevant extract of which is placed on record. The same reads as follows:- “2. Application Save as otherwise provided in these rules, [these rules shall apply to Government servants appointed on or before the 31st day of December, 2003] including civilian Government servants in the Defence Services, appointed substantively to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to— (a) railway servants; (b) persons in casual and daily-rated employment; (c) persons paid from contingencies; (d) persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund; (e) members of the All India Services; (f) persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishments in foreign countries; (g) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise; and (h) persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.” 10. He particularly places reliance on Clause (b) to say that the pension / family pension cannot be granted to ‘persons in casual and daily-rated employment’. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. Firstly, we may observe that there is no answer to the charge of discrimination against the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have accepted the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt and complied with the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners cannot seek to discriminate between two employees. If the understanding of the petitioners was that the family of the deceased employee, who was serving as a temporary Group ‘D’ employee, is not entitled to family pension or compassionate appointment, then the petitioners should have challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt. However, that is not done. Thus, they have accepted the principle that in such like cases, family pension and compassionate appointment could be granted. 13. Having accepted the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt, the petitioners cannot choose to assail the same in the case of respondent No. 2. However, that is not done. Thus, they have accepted the principle that in such like cases, family pension and compassionate appointment could be granted. 13. Having accepted the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt, the petitioners cannot choose to assail the same in the case of respondent No. 2. Moreover, a perusal of Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules shows that the case of respondent No. 2 or her late husband was not covered by any of the exclusionary clauses (a) to (h) of the said Rule. Reliance placed on clause (b) is misplaced, since it cannot be said that the late husband of respondent No. 2-Shri Gopal Dutt Tiwari was serving in casual or daily-rated employment. He had been granted temporary status and was drawing salary in a regular pay-scale. 14. We are, therefore, of the view that respondent No. 2 was entitled to the relief of family pension as granted by the Tribunal. However, we find that the direction issued by the Tribunal to grant compassionate appointment to the son of respondent No. 2-Lalit Mohan Tiwari cannot be sustained. Gopal Dutt Tiwari had died on 21.08.2004. Compassionate appointment is granted to mitigate immediate financial crisis, into which the family of the government servant is plunged due to his / her untimely demise. It is not a regular source of recruitment. 15. Since the demise of Gopal Dutt Tiwari, about 11 years had elapsed when the CAT decided the O.A.s. At that late stage, to direct to grant compassionate appointment to Mr. Lalit Mohan Tiwari-the son of respondent No. 2 (who is now stated to be about 39 years and doing a private job), was not in order. We, therefore, modify the relief granted by the Tribunal. The direction to grant compassionate appointment to Mr. Lalit Mohan Tiwari is, therefore, set aside. Since compassionate appointment was not considered when it should have been considered on merits, we, instead, direct the petitioners to pay damages to respondent No. 2 quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only). In all other respects, the impugned order is maintained. The petitioners are directed to comply with the same, as well as the order passed by this Court, within the next six weeks. 16. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 17. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.