JUDGMENT : K. Kumaresh Babu, J. (Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench dated 14.02.2023 in O.A.No.310/00179/ 2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post commensurate with her educational qualification.) 1. This Writ Petition had been preferred by the unsuccessful applicant wherein the challenge to the order passed by the first respondent dated 26.12.2018, was rejected thereby the consequential prayer sought for an appointment on compassionate ground has also been rejected. 2. Heard Mr. V. Vijayshankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father died in harness on 29.11.1999 and that even during the lifetime of her father, the mother had permanently deserted the matrimonial home. At the time of death of the father, she was only eight (8) years old and thereafter, she had been under the custody and care of her relatives on the paternal side, namely the grandfather, grandmother and uncle. She had attained majority only in the year 2008 and had completed her U.G. degree in B.E.,(EEE). Thereafter, she had submitted her application on 17.03.2011 for an appointment on compassionate ground. As the same was not considered, she has moved the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.483 of 2014 and the Tribunal was pleased to direct the authorities to pass an appropriate order. Pursuant to such direction by the Tribunal, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the department on 21.05.2014, which came to be challenged by the petitioner in O.A.No.20 of 2016, wherein the Tribunal had set aside the said communication and directed the authorities to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with the guidelines framed for compassionate appointment. 4. A further order came to be passed by the Department on 28.03.2018, which was also set aside by the Tribunal in the Original Application initiated by the petitioner in O.A.No.1280 of 2018, where directions were issued as to on what basis the claim of the petitioner should be considered. Inspite of the said direction, again the respondents have re jected the claim of the petitioner by another innocuous order. Inspite of the said direction, again the respondents have re jected the claim of the petitioner by another innocuous order. Challenging the same, she had approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.179 of 2019, in which the impugned order came to be passed. He would submit that inspite of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal directing the respondents to pass a detailed order, again an innocuous order was passed. Without considering the same, the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered, as the claim of the petitioner itself goes against the scheme of the compassionate appointment. He would submit that the Tribunal has not considered that inspite of the earlier orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner had been set aside with a direction to pass a detailed order by considering the various aspects, the respondent had not done on that ground alone, the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the order passed by the respondent. Hence he would seek interference of this Court to the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is an admitted case that the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1999. At that point of time, the petitioner was only eight (8) years of age and she had been under the custody and care of the paternal relatives. From the facts that she had completed her degree in B.E.,(EEE), it cannot be claimed by the petitioner that she was in a penurious circumstances. The scheme of compassionate appointment, as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court is only to wade of the immediate penurious circumstances, in which the family of the deceased employee would be put in great hardship. 7. Since admittedly in this case, the father of the petitioner died in harness in the year 1999 and the claim of the petitioner had been made only in the year 2011. Further we have also actually found that there is no penurious circumstances, which the petitioner was put due to the death of the father of the deceased employee. In view of the same, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, which would warrant our interference. 8. Further we have also actually found that there is no penurious circumstances, which the petitioner was put due to the death of the father of the deceased employee. In view of the same, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, which would warrant our interference. 8. In fine, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.