JUDGMENT : The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P8 order whereby the request of the petitioners herein to grant compassionate appointment to the 2 nd petitioner, the daughter of the deceased, on the ground that she was depending on her father at the time of his demise, was rejected. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that late T.V.Viswanathan died on 18.03.2012 while working as Semi Skilled Worker (SSW), Electrical Section in the 2 nd respondent Cochin Shipyard Ltd. (CSL). By that time, he had 22 years of qualified service. The 1 st petitioner herein was, being the wife, completely dependent on him. The reason assigned for seeking compassionate appointment is that the 2 nd petitioner and her husband were looking after the 1 st petitioner, who is suffering from various diseases as evident from Ext.P1. 3. In response to the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submitted that the 1 st petitioner is well taken care of by the existing CSL system. She is getting proper medical allowances. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is stated that the husband of the 1 st petitioner and the father of the 2 nd petitioner and the 4 th respondent joined the service of CSL on 08.08.1974 and were to retire on 31.08.2012. But five months and 11 days prior to his retirement he died on 18.03.2012. It is seen from the available company records that an amount of Rs.11,30,587/- as Gratuity and Rs.4,86,350/- towards Provident Fund were disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. Apart from the above, the 1 st petitioner is also eligible for Family Pension under the EPS Scheme. It is also submitted that the 1 st petitioner has enrolled under the medical assistance scheme for retired employees by CSL which, every year, provides for a medical insurance coverage of Rs.8 lakhs for in-patient treatment, reimbursement upto Rs.20,000/- for outpatient treatment, which extends to Rs.40,000/- in case of critical illnesses. In addition to the above, if retired employees/dependants are taking long term medicines for lifestyle diseases, then upon furnishing prescription by a medical practitioner, medicines are forwarded by the Respondent to the home address of the employee/dependant by courier. In addition to the above, if retired employees/dependants are taking long term medicines for lifestyle diseases, then upon furnishing prescription by a medical practitioner, medicines are forwarded by the Respondent to the home address of the employee/dependant by courier. Accordingly, the 1 st petitioner had enrolled herself in the medical assistance scheme of CSL for retired employees, she has no dependency on the 2 nd petitioner for her medical expenses. 4. In response to that, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought my attention to Clause 18(c) of the Scheme for compassionate appointment, which is produced as Ext.P9, which reads thus: “(c) The Scheme of compassionate appointments was conceived as far back as 1958. Since then a number of welfare measures have been introduced by the Government which have made a significant difference in the financial position of the families of the Government servants dying in harness/retired on medical grounds. An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the Government servant has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family etc.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further asserts that Ext.P8, the impugned order, is completely a non speaking order, which says that they have considered the request of the 1 st petitioner and informed her that the daughter is not fit for the compassionate appointment as she falls outside the ambit of the Rules and Guidelines framed under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, since married children do not qualify to be considered as wholly dependent on a deceased employee. 6. In support of the contentions, the petitioners produced a reported decision in Superintendent, RMS and Others v. Kavitha K.Francis [ 2013 (3) KHC 327 ] in which paragraph 7 reads thus: “In the ultimate analysis, what is required to be understood is as to whether the applicant was wholly dependent on the government servant concerned. 6. In support of the contentions, the petitioners produced a reported decision in Superintendent, RMS and Others v. Kavitha K.Francis [ 2013 (3) KHC 327 ] in which paragraph 7 reads thus: “In the ultimate analysis, what is required to be understood is as to whether the applicant was wholly dependent on the government servant concerned. In the case in hand, the Tribunal has assimilated the entire materials on record and has come to the clear conclusion that the applicant, essentially a victim of impecunious circumstances, left with two daughters to be taken care of, dependent entirely on her parents for support. The homestead, where the deceased Mailman Francis and his wife were residing, has been sold off. His widow and daughter with the little ones are now living in a rented home even as disclosed by the representation made in 2010 by them and produced before the Tribunal by the establishment. Taking the entire facts into consideration, the Tribunal has, in our view, rendered a verdict without breaking the law but rendering justice. The Tribunal essentially stated that the Rules have been followed by the establishment. In fact, it had not. We say so because, on the basis of the compassionate appointment scheme that now exists, it can never be said that the mere reason that a daughter of an employee dying in harness gets married does not take her away from the zone of consideration as a dependent family member. In this context, the reference made by the Tribunal to the precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and by this Court is apposite, though the learned senior panel counsel has rightly pointed out that the fact that it could have been a case where the daughter was unmarried at the time of making the application and later got married, in our view, makes no difference.” 7. Going by this provision, I do not find that the 2 nd respondent has neglected all these facts. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent itself shows that these factors have already been considered by the 2 nd respondent. 8. Taking into consideration the reported decision, no similarity is found with the facts of this case. Compassionate appointment can be granted only to the dependents of an employee who dies in harness, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 8. Taking into consideration the reported decision, no similarity is found with the facts of this case. Compassionate appointment can be granted only to the dependents of an employee who dies in harness, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The primary objective of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, alleviate financial distress, and help them to cope up with the emergency. 9. Here in the case on hand, the deceased passed away five months and 11 days before his retirement. This shows that even otherwise, the deceased was at the verge of retirement. Taking this situation into consideration, it appears that the petitioners’ family is not put in the penury as envisaged in the compassionate appointment. The object of the compassionate appointment is not met in this case. 10. As per the available company records, an amount of Rs. 11,30,587/- as Gratuity and Rs.4,86,350/- as Provident Fund were disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. The 1 st petitioner is also eligible for the family pension and her medical expenses are covered under the scheme for retired employees of CSL. There is no dependency of the 1 st petitioner on the 2 nd petitioner for medical expenses. The 2 nd petitioner was married at the time of her father’s death. The petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that the 2 nd petitioner was dependent on the deceased at the time of his death. The mere contention that the 2 nd petitioner and her husband are looking after the 1 st petitioner does not constitute a valid ground for seeking compassionate appointment for the 2 nd petitioner. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P8 order. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.