petitioner is a Railway employee, posted at Nasik, Maharashtra. The case of the petitioner was considered and was refused on the ground that one of her brother is a government servant, cannot claim any appointment on compassionate ground. The benefit of compassionate appointment is not given to an individual but to the family and that too for the sustenance of the family in a situation when the bread earner has died and the family has been left to financial distress. Here the family has already an earning member, the question of financial distress does not arise. A claim has been made that the brother of the petitioner is living separately cannot be a ground to grant benefit of compassionate appointment. This issue has already been taken into consideration by this Court in CWJC No. 10236 of 2013 (Vijay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Court had held that it is not a source of appointment but, to give solace to the entire family, the benefit is given to tide over the financial crisis. In the present case, already one of the brothers is in employment in the Railway and, thus, the question of granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner does not arise.