compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The respondent nos.3 and 4 have rightly exercised the discretion in terms of the Government Resolution dated 31.12.2002 while denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner. After the death of the petitioner's father, the mother of the petitioner started receiving family pension of Rs.23,000/- per month from January-2013. On the death of the father of the petitioner, the family received a substantial amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs) towards retiral benefits. The petitioner did not disclose these facts in the petition though some of the facts are mentioned in the application made by the petitioner to the respondent nos.3 and 4. The object of granting compassionate appoint is to provide succour to the dependents of the bread winner, who dies in harness. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide some financial help to the family members of the bread winner who would be literally on the streets if compassionate appointment is refused. It could be granted in cases where the retiral benefits received by an employee who dies in harness are very meager and are not sufficient to satisfy the basic needs of the members of the family. However, such is not the case here. The mother of the petitioner has started receiving a sum of Rs.23,000/- per month from January-2013 towards family pension and the family has received a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. There are several Class-III and Class-IV employees who receive less than an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- towards retiral benefits even after completing their service on superannuation. We do not find that the respondent nos.3 and 4 have exercised the discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner while
