Honble Justice Mr. Arun Kumar Goel, Judge 1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to consider and appoint him against any post in the Corporation on compassionate grounds and also to settle and reimburse all pensionary benefits viz. gratuity, P.P. Fund, leave encashment and family pension etc. to him being legal heir of deceased Girdhari lal. Fa­ther of the petitioner, Girdhari Lal was working further case is that despite legal notice, Annexure "A", when no relief has been given to him by the respondents, he is forced to file this writ petition. 2. Respondents were put to notice and thereafter writ petition was admitted. Objec­tions have been filed by the respondents. They admit that Girdhari Lal was in their service but was WC Beldar and not a Welder. They have specifically stated that all dues in favour of de­ceased Girdhari Lal were paid immediately to his widow, as such there is nothing due and pay­able by respondents as claimed in the writ peti­tion. Plea of the petitioner that he was assured regarding his engagement on compassionate grounds is specifically denied. Regarding fam­ily state of the deceased, it is specifically pleaded by them that Maya Devi is the widow, whereas Kasturi Kal and Romesh Kutnar (pe­titioner) are his sons. Former is serving in the army and family also owns moveable and im-moveable property. 3. Petitioner applied for the post of LDC which claim was turned down as far back as on 26th June 1995, copy where of is placed on the file as annexure "B" with the objections. When petitioner again approached after two years vide his application dated: 10.03.1997, the same was also turned down and mother of the petitioner was informed vide communication, copy whereof is filed as Annexure "C" with the ob­jections. In the light of aforesaid pleadings learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by not offering employment to his client, re­spondents have caused grave injustice to his client, as such, direction needs to be issued in that behalf. On the other hand claim of the petitioner has been repudiated by Shri Rabstan, learned Additional Central Government stand­ing Counsel. According to him claim of the petitioner stood rejected in the year 1995 itself, which fact petitioner has purposely with-held in the writ petition. On the other hand claim of the petitioner has been repudiated by Shri Rabstan, learned Additional Central Government stand­ing Counsel. According to him claim of the petitioner stood rejected in the year 1995 itself, which fact petitioner has purposely with-held in the writ petition. This by itself is a good ground to reject this petition because he made an attempt to get relief by suppression of as well as by with-holding of a fact which has material bearing on this case. In addition to this, writ petition suffered from delay and laches, reason being that the subsequent rejection does not improve the case of petitioner. Right if any (though he stated that this position is not ad­mitted) accrued to the petitioner in the year 1995 and he waited till 4th Feb. 2k when present writ petition was filed. Thus according to him petitioner had sustained for more than 4 & l/2years after the rejection of his earlier claim. On this ground he is not entitled to any relief. 4. It is by now well settled that so far mat­ter relating to compassionate appointment is concerned, it comes as a measure of providing immediate relief to the family of deceased em­ployee after his death. It can neither be claimed as a matter of right nor is an alternate source of entry into service, muchless claiming desired employment. Recruitment to all services is gov­erned by the rules framed in that behalf as per Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Sec­tion 124 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kash­mir. Both Central Government as well as State government have framed rules/policy as a wel­fare measure keeping in view its duty as a wel­fare state, of course within the frame work of such rales to offer employment on compassion­ate grounds. Such appointments are in fact in the nature of exception to the general rule i.e. rules relating to recruitment to the post offered to such an incumbent. 5. Here it may also be observed that a per­son who is appointed on compassionate grounds cannot be permitted to say that he should be given an appointment to his liking. If the offer of the Government is not acceptable, the per­son concerned can decline the same and take up his chance by competing in the open mar­ket. 5. Here it may also be observed that a per­son who is appointed on compassionate grounds cannot be permitted to say that he should be given an appointment to his liking. If the offer of the Government is not acceptable, the per­son concerned can decline the same and take up his chance by competing in the open mar­ket. Secondly claims after lapse of sufficient time during which the family as well as a per­son like petitioner had sustained himself also disentitles him from claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been judicially held that where claims were made after fairly longtime as in the present case, claim for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. Underlying reason is that with the death of bread winner of the family it should not be left high and dry with a begging bowl in the street & that is the object sought to be achieved and is the sole purpose and intendment of such claims/rules. For taking this view see "Haryana State Electricity Board & another vs Hakim Singh", (1997) 8SCC 85; "Jagdish Prasad vs time during which the family as well as a per­son like petitioner had sustained himself also disentitles him from claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been judicially held that where claims were made after fairly longtime as in the present case, claim for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. Underlying reason is that with the death of bread winner of the family it should not be left high and dry with a begging bowl in the street & that is the object sought to be achieved and is the sole purpose and intendment of such claims/ rules. For taking this view see "Haryana State Electricity Board & another vs Hakim Singh", (1997) 8SCC 85; "Jagdish Prasad vs State of Bihar & another; (1996) 1 SCC 301; "S. Mohan vs Government of T.N & another" (1998) 9 SCC 485; "Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar & another" (1996)8 SCC 23 & "State of Bihar & others vs Samsuz Zoha etc." AIR 1996 SC 1961. 6. Applying the aforesaid tests to the facts of the present case, it is clear that petitioner is not at all entitled to grant any relief in the present writ petition. 6. Applying the aforesaid tests to the facts of the present case, it is clear that petitioner is not at all entitled to grant any relief in the present writ petition. This is in addition to the fact that for reasons best known to him he did not disclose that his claim firstly stood rejected as far back as in the year 1995 and thereafter in the year 1997. The omission is not uninten­tional and reason for it is not difficult to find. Had he pleaded the fact of rejection of two oc­casions, may be his claim would have been dis­missed at the very thresh hold without notice being issued to the respondents. In this behalf it may also be observed that exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion of India and Section 103 of the Constitu­tion of J&K is equitable and discretionary. Before invoking the same litigant like petitioner must come to court with clean hands. Besides this, it must also be kept in view that one who seeks equity must have equity, on this ground also claim made in the writ petition is liable to rejected. 7. So far the matter relating to release of pensionary benefits as claimed in the writ peti­tion is concerned, respondents have specifically stated that all benefits available have been re­leased in favour of widow of deceased, i.e. mother of present petitioner. As such, on this ground also claim made in the writ petition has no merit. From whatever angle case of the petitioner may be viewed there is no merit in it. No other point is urged 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition must fail and is accordingly dis­missed.