WP(C) 3424/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. F.K.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Cha kraborty, learned State Counsel. The three petitioners, by means of this writ petition, have prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for appointment on compass ionate ground. While the respective father of the petitioners No. 1 and 3 died o n 4.11.1995 and 1.1.1994, the father of the petitioner No.2 died on 13.2.2002. A ccording to the petitioners, their fathers expired while in service. According to the petitioners, their time to time representations did not yield any result, they have finally approached this Court. Needless to say that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a ma tter of right. Needless also to say that a compassionate appointment is not a so urce of recruitment. The very purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to redeem the family in distress and by way of providing immediate assistance. A fter expiry of several years, a presumption is drawn that a family could surviv e and thus no longer require any assistance. If a direction is issued to the res pondents to consider the cases of the petitioners after expiry of more than 16, 9 and 17 years, same will be anti-thesis to the very concept of the compassionat e appointment. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.