JUDGMENT Syam Kumar V.M., J. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2017 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28439 of 2017. Appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C). 2. Appellant, is the daughter of a deceased employee of the Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (herein after referred to as the respondent Company) which is a public sector undertaking under the administrative control of the 1 st respondent. Her mother had died while in service. Appellant had filed the W.P.(C) primarily challenging Exhibit P4 letter issued to her by the respondent Company declining her claim for compassionate appointment. She also seeks to quash Exhibit P5 Office Memorandum which is a consolidated instruction on compassionate appointment issued by the 1 st respondent alleging discrimination against married daughters. The following prayers were sought in the W.P.(C): “i) To call for the records leading to Exts.P4 and P5 and quash the same by the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction ; ii) To issue the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the 2 nd respondent or in any other place in the same department under the dying in harness scheme at the earliest ; iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment under the dying in harness scheme on death of her mother who was an employee under the 3 rd respondent; and iv) To grant such other reliefs which are just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C), holding that Exhibit P4 letter declining compassionate appointment had been validly rendered and there was no cause or reason to interfere with the same. Regarding the alleged discrimination in Exhibit P5 order, the said question was left open. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this W.A. is filed. 4. Heard Sri.C.Rajendran, Advocate for the appellant and Sri.Jai Mohan, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, to the extent declined the prayers sought for by the appellant (petitioner) is illegal and fit to be interfered with. 4. Heard Sri.C.Rajendran, Advocate for the appellant and Sri.Jai Mohan, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, to the extent declined the prayers sought for by the appellant (petitioner) is illegal and fit to be interfered with. He contends that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had been leaving in penury after the death of her mother and that she was in all terms entitled to seek a compassionate appointment in the respondent Company. He alleges that the criteria for determining indigent conditions of applicants had not been disclosed by the respondents and this amounted to a denial of justice. It is also contended that Exhibit P5 Office Memorandum to the extent it discriminated against married daughters, ought to have been set aside as violative of Article 14 , and the learned Single Judge had erred in declining to consider the same. The learned counsel thus seeks to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and requests that the W.P.(C) may be allowed as prayed for. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and that the same has been validly rendered. He submits that even the very maintainability of the W.P.(C) is precarious, insofar as the respondent Company has not been arrayed as a party and only the officials of the Company have been included in the respondent array of the Writ Petition. The Company being a separate legal entity, having a distinct status from its office bearers, the petition filed without making the respondent Company as a party, cannot be sustained in law. Referring to Annexure R2(a), which is an administrative instruction dated 06.10.2008 it is submitted that 5% of vacancies arising out of death, resignation and retirement of employees would alone be considered for compassionate appointment in the respondent Company and the relevant clause therein clearly stipulated that the time limit of 3 years as per the Government of India instructions for making compassionate appointment had to be strictly followed. Further, it has been stipulated therein that whenever a compassionate appointment is not possible, financial assistance in lieu of a compassionate appointment can be provided. Further, it has been stipulated therein that whenever a compassionate appointment is not possible, financial assistance in lieu of a compassionate appointment can be provided. Referring to Annexure R2(b), produced as an additional document, which is a copy of the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998, along with the scheme for compassionate appointment, it is contended that the appellant had not submitted any application as prescribed therein and had only forwarded a biodata. Further, no application had been submitted within the prescribed 3 years. However, pursuant to Exhibit P3 letter issued by the appellant, her request was duly considered and was rejected by Exhibit P4 letter dated 25.05.2017. It is contended by the learned counsel that subsequent thereto, in the year 2022, appellant's father submitted an application for payment of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment and along with the said application the appellant had submitted a no objection letter undertaking on stamp paper that she has no objection to her father availing the exgratia financial assistance from the respondent Company in lieu of compassionate appointment and specifying that she will not have any claim in the matter. The said request was considered and rejected by the respondent Company on the ground that the appellant's father was not a dependent and that he had retired from the Food Corporation of India and was drawing a monthly pension. Thereafter, the appellant had submitted a letter stating that the respondent Company should consider her original letter for compassionate appointment, ignoring her NOC,whereby she had earlier given up her claims in the matter. The learned counsel thus contends that, in addition to the fact that the appellant is not legally entitled to seek compassionate appointment as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the subsequent development of her issuing an affidavit and NOC in support of her father’s application for exgratia in lieu of compassionate appointment, disentitles her from pursuing this writ appeal. Thus, on the ground of ineligibility as well as on the ground of relinquishment of claims, it is submitted that the writ appeal filed by the appellant is only to be dismissed. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. The principles relating to compassionate appointment are no longer res integra. Thus, on the ground of ineligibility as well as on the ground of relinquishment of claims, it is submitted that the writ appeal filed by the appellant is only to be dismissed. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. The principles relating to compassionate appointment are no longer res integra. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right, and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased Government employee as a consequence of his death. A claim for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained after a lapse of a considerable period after the death of the Government employee. The object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, and the object is not to give a member of such a family a post much less a post for a post held by the deceased. It is also trite that the mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such a source of livelihood by seeking a compassionate appointment. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 ]. It is trite as laid down in the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar [ (2019) 3 SCC 653 ] that where there is a significant gap between making the application for compassionate appointment and filing a Writ Petition to challenge inaction on the part of the Government, a direction to consider the application for compassionate appointment may not be issued. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after a detailed survey of the precedents on the subject, in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and others [ (2025) 5 SCC 712 ] summarised the essential principles on the topic as follows: “i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. hat compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source” It is in the legal backdrop of the above settled and binding precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that we have to consider the contentions put forth by the appellant. 8. It is noted that the mother of the appellant had died on 30.12.2010, Exhibit P3 letter seeking compassionate appointment was preferred by the appellant on 16.04.2016. The respondent Company had rejected the same vide Exhibit P4 dated 25.05.2017. Thus, no formal application as envisaged under the relevant norms had been preferred by the appellant within time. It had been specifically stated in Exhibit P4 that the appellant does not meet the mandates regarding indigent status as is required under the relevant norms and that she cannot be termed as a dependent under the relevant rules. The said reason, pointed out in Exhibit P4, stands uncontroverted. Except for the general contention of discrimination against married daughters raised against Exhibit P5, nothing legally has been put forth to contend that the appellant is entitled to claim under the dying in harness. The said reason, pointed out in Exhibit P4, stands uncontroverted. Except for the general contention of discrimination against married daughters raised against Exhibit P5, nothing legally has been put forth to contend that the appellant is entitled to claim under the dying in harness. The learned Single Judge had thus correctly concluded that the petitioner had not put forth any tenable case that any appointment had been given, overlooking the claim of the petitioner, even without going into the question of indigent circumstances. The finding of the learned Single Judge that none of the rights of the petitioner had been infringed is valid and proper. The further conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that in the said circumstances, appellant's case is not the appropriate case wherein the question of alleged discrimination towards married daughters could be considered is also apposite. Over and above the same, the fact that the appellant had, after the filing of the Writ Appeal, already moved the respondent Company as part of her father’s application for exgratia undertaking to give up her claim for compassionate appointment also undermines the case put forth by the appellant in this W.A. The learned counsel for the appellant had attempted to play down the impact of such an affidavit and NOC by contending that since the said application preferred by the father had been rejected by the respondent, the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment will stand resurrected. However, on the very face of the said admission, the indigency claimed by the appellant no longer survives. The appellant does not satisfy any of the requirements for a compassionate appointment under the relevant norms. Further, the mandates as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) are also not met. The Writ Appeal thus fails, and it is dismissed.