HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner sought for appointment on the compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner died on 16-2-1977. The petitioner's case is that at the time of death of his father, he was only four years of age. The petitioner further alleged that he had! applied for appointment on the compassionate ground on 18-8-1991 and; thereafter he made a representation on 22-4-1994. When appointment was not given to the petitioner, he approached the Tribunal and the tribunal rejected the appeal taking the view that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as representation was made in August 1994 and there was no explanation why it was made so much delayed. The petitioner has now come before this Court with petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's grievance as per contention made by the learned Counsel is that he was aged about four years at the time of death of his father and when he attained the age of majority, he applied for being given appointment on compassionate ground and he should have been given appointment within five years. The learned Counsel urged that he sought appointment on compassionate ground and moved the application in 1991 and in August 1994 and earlier to that the petitioner was minor. ( 3 ) WE are unable to accept these contentions of the petitioner's Counsel as the appointment which is given on compassionate ground has got a specific purpose and the purpose is that to enable the surviving member to tide over the calamity caused to the family by the death of the bread-earner, and to mitigate the hardship caused to members of the family of employee dying in harness as an immediate relief. None of these considerations do operate, if and when application for appointment on compassionate ground is made after a decade or more from the date of death of the employee. This ordinarily prima facie shows that for such long period, family could manage its affairs and has been possessed of sufficient means of subsistence. None of these considerations do operate, if and when application for appointment on compassionate ground is made after a decade or more from the date of death of the employee. This ordinarily prima facie shows that for such long period, family could manage its affairs and has been possessed of sufficient means of subsistence. When we so observe, we find support for our view from the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as from the copy of the order dated 1-1-1979 issued by the Comptroller and Auditor general bearing No. 2884/mge, II/52-76/i/ew/ngf III placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 4 ) IN the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v Paras Nath, the father of the respondent before the Supreme Court namely father of paras Nath, had died some time in 1969 and thereafter with effect from 21-12-1973, the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 came into force. At the time of the death of his father, Paras Nath, respondent before the Supreme court, was a child of 2 years and 17 years after the death of his father, on 8-1-1986 he made an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the said rules. His application was rejected by the officers, but when he filed the writ petition, the High Court (an Hon'ble single Judge) allowed the writ petition and directed for appointment on compassionate ground and on appeal from the Single Judge's order, the division Bench maintained the order of the Single Judge. On appeal to the Supreme Court by the State Government, their Lordships of the supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Allahabad High Court and laid it down as under. "5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are rules. providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case". providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case". ( 5 ) IN an earlier decision in the case of Union of India v Bhagawan singh, a similar view was laid down and this case was followed in the case of Paras Nath, supra. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v State of Bihar and Others, it has been laid down that such reservation on compassionate grounds are made only with an intent to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee. Their Lordships further laid down. "there cannot be a reservations of a vacancy till such time as petitioner becomes major after a number of years unless there is some specific provision. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that family gets immediate relief". (emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) IN this connection, it will be appropriate to quote paragraph 3 of the above noted order relied upon and placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner which reads as under:"3. Where the death took place long ago. The cases of compassionate appointments should normally be considered if requests are received within a reasonable time as the intention to give compassionate appointment in relaxation of procedure of recruitment is to enable the surviving members of the family of the ex-employee to tide over the crises which they have to face immediately when their breadwinner dies. However, in cases where the family does not seek appointment for any dependent immediately after the death of the Government servant for the reasons that the children of the deceased employee were minor, or for any other valid reasons, this should be considered, only if the appointment is sought within 5 years from the date of death of the Government servant. Any relaxation beyond this period may be considered very rarely. It should be kept in view that when several years have passed after the death of the Government servant it would appear prima facie that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years and had some means of subsistence. Any relaxation beyond this period may be considered very rarely. It should be kept in view that when several years have passed after the death of the Government servant it would appear prima facie that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years and had some means of subsistence. Therefore, the request for appointment after lapse of more than 5 years should be dealt with great deal of circumspection in order to ensure due allocation of posts to more deserving cases, if any". (emphasis supplied) ( 7 ) IN the present case, the father of the petitioner had died on February 16, 1977 and at that time, the petitioner was, according to his own case, a four year old boy. As mentioned earlier, he applied for appointment on the compassionate ground only in 1994. As there is no proof of any earlier application having been made in 1991, even there is no mention of any such application having been made in 1991, in application/letter dated 22-4-1994, Annexure-E. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases and above rule, the petitioner has got no case on merits. That the Tribunal by having passed order impugned dismissing the claim of the petitioner before it, the Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting petitioner's claim and in maintaining the order passed by the respondent. Thus considered, in our opinion, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and order impugned does not call for any interference. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .