JUDGMENT :

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved since her application for compassionate appointment was declined by Respondent No. 3. The appellant was unsuccessful before the High Court.

3. We find from the Judgment of the High Court that the main reason for rejecting the case of the appellant was that the family had managed to survive for over ten years and, therefore, there was no immediate necessity. We are afraid that this cannot be a major reason for rejection. Whether the family pulled on begging or borrowing also should have been one consideration. We do not propose to deal with the matter any further in the peculiar facts of this case. The widow had already been empaneled for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but was declined the benefit only on account of crossing the age. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, her daughter should be considered for compassionate appointment. Ordered accordingly.

4. We make it clear that this order is passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice and hence, it may not be treated as a precedent.

5. The needful shall