R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is seeking the following prayers in this petition:" (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 10-9-2001 in No. B5/smg/1347/2001-02 (Annexure-A) issued by the 2nd respondent; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and appoint him in any suitable post in the service of the respondent 1; (iii) Grant any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice". ( 2 ) PETITIONER's father was a lineman in service of KPTCL and he died on 23-8-1973 while in service. His father had four female and three male children. Petitioner was the last son and he was a minor. Respondents introduced a scheme in the year 1974 with regard to compassionate appointment. His family is being given family pension as on today. In the year 1991 petitioner came to know that one eligible member of the family is entitled for employment on compassionate grounds. Petitioner had become major by that time and was advised to submit an application in this regard. An application was made on 20-8-1991. Since there was inaction on the part of the respondents he submitted a reminder as per Annexure-D. His case was rejected in the year 1997 in terms of annexure-E. Petitioner submitted another representation as per Annexure-F. Thereafter, on account of inaction by the respondents he filed a writ petition in this Court in W. P. No. 29555 of 1997. Petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation filed by the petitioner in this regard. After remand the respondents have issued the present endorsement. This endorsement is challenged by the petitioner. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri Robert D'souza, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that his client attained majority and he is entitled for compassionate employment. In the circumstances, according to Counsel, the endorsement require my interference. He also states that in somewhat identical circumstances others have been given providing this facility. He also says that the judgment of the Apex Court as referred to in the endorsement is not applicable and the said judgment is applicable only to future cases. In the circumstances, according to Counsel, the endorsement require my interference. He also states that in somewhat identical circumstances others have been given providing this facility. He also says that the judgment of the Apex Court as referred to in the endorsement is not applicable and the said judgment is applicable only to future cases. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the Counsels I have perused the material placed before this Court. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is seeking for a compassionate appointment. His father died on 23-8-1973 while in service. Petitioner has made his application in the year 1991 i. e. , on 20-8-1991. His case was rejected on 5-3-1997. In the light of these three dates it is clear that on the date when his father died there was no scheme providing for this facility of compassionate appointment. The scheme was introduced only from 21-10-1974. Therefore, the respondent rightly, in my view, has rejected his case by holding that the death prior to the scheme cannot come within the four corners of the scheme. Petitioner is unable to show as to how this reasoning is opposed to the scheme itself. In the circumstances the reasoning of the Board with regard to non-application of the scheme to the facts of this case cannot be disturbed. ( 6 ) THE Board has stated in the endorsement that from the material facts it is seen that the family of the deceased cannot be said to be in such a dire need of any such employment. Compassionate employment is given only to those who are in absolute need of the same in the interest of the welfare of the family. No such ground is made out by the petitioner. Petitioner has filed the application only after a lapse of 18 years. He made an application in the year 1991 and he slept over the matter till 1997. There are other members in the family who were supporting the family at the relevant point of time. In the circumstances this finding also cannot be said to be unsustainable in law. ( 7 ) MOREOVER it can be seen that recently the Apex Court in the case of sanjay Kumar v State of Bihar and Others1, has ruled in para 3 reading as under:"we are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. ( 7 ) MOREOVER it can be seen that recently the Apex Court in the case of sanjay Kumar v State of Bihar and Others1, has ruled in para 3 reading as under:"we are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in director of Education (Secondary) and Another v Pushpendra Kumar and Others2. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provision. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. ( 8 ) THE respondents have noticed this judgment to reject the case of the petitioner. Petitioner is unable to show that the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of this case. The only argument is that this judgment is applicable only to future cases and that cannot be accepted ln the absence of any such observation by the Apex Court. In the light of the clear pronouncement of law and in the light of the endorsement being made in terms of the Apex Court ruling I am not able to accept the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner in this regard with regard to non-applicability of the judgment. Therefore, on this ground also en- dorsement has to be accepted. ( 9 ) LAST argument of the Counsel is that in some similar cases such facility is given. Necessary details in that regard are not available and moreover even if such mistake is committed such mistake cannot be perpetuated for all the time to come. Therefore, on this ground also en- dorsement has to be accepted. ( 9 ) LAST argument of the Counsel is that in some similar cases such facility is given. Necessary details in that regard are not available and moreover even if such mistake is committed such mistake cannot be perpetuated for all the time to come. ( 10 ) TAKING into consideration all aspects of the matter in the given set of facts I do not find any error of law to interfere with a well-rea- soned endorsement. Petition hence stands rejected. --- *** --- .