WP(C) 3259/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Mr. K.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to appoint him under the respondents in any suitable post o n compassionate ground. The prayer so made is on account of death of his father who died while was serving as JUGALI on 29.8.94. After the applications submitt ed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the respondents by their letter dated 12.7.95 informed the petitioner about insufficiency of parti culars submitted by him. He was asked to submit further particulars and accordin gly he had submitted those particulars. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was inf ormed vide letter dated 27.3.2002 that appointment on compassionate ground had b een stopped and instead he would be entitled to financial benefit under Financi al Benefit Scheme . The petitioner refused to accept the financial benefits and insisted for compassionate appointment. He having not been appointed, filed the writ petition praying for the aforesaid direction. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the clai m of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is not sustainable, both on fa ct as well as in law. According to the respondents, on perusal of the relevant d ocuments, it was found that out of the six dependents of the deceased employee ( 3 sons 2 daughters and wife), the eldest son was a cultivator, 2nd son was a dr iver and the elder daughter was earning from private coaching. That apart, the p etitioner had also monthly income of Rs. 800/- per month and Rs. 9600/- per annu m. It has also been stated that the respondent Corporation has a large number of claims for benevolent measures. In the changed economic condition and in view o f Govt. of India’s policy of liberalization and its desire in reduction in manp ower of Commercial Public Sector Undertaking like NEEPCO, it become difficult fo r the respondents to continue with the concept of the compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 1.4.98 decided to in troduce the scheme of financial benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is in the aforesaid changed circumstances, the petitioner was offered with the benefit of financial assistance instead of compassionate appointment. However, he declined to accept the same. Law is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Law is also well settled that the compassionate appointment i s not a source of recruitment. Hosts of considerations are there towards appoin ting a person on compassionate ground. Apart from the fact that the petitioner and his family had sufficient in come, the petitioner himself was engaged in some employment and was earning Rs. 800/- p.m. That apart, the respondent Corporation in view of its changed policy decided to introduce Financial Benefit Scheme in lieu of compassionate appointme nt. Accordingly, the petitioner was offered with the financial assistance but he declined to accept the same as if compassionate appointment is a matter of righ t for him. Apart from the above, the very basis of the claim for compassionate app ointment does not survive any longer. The father of the petitioner died about 17 years back. Compassionate appointment is provided to provide immediate financia l assistance to the family in distress. After efflux of a considerable period of time, it is normally presumed that the family could survive without such assist ance. For all the aforesaid reasons, no direction can be issued to the respon dents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. However, the petitioner and his family would be entitled to receive the financial assistance as may be provided by the respondent Corporation. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.