Order Heard Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rupesh Kumar for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing the Order dated 17/18.9.2001 (Annexure-5) by which the application of tl:1e Petitioner for appointment on compassionate consideration consequent upon the death of her husband has been rejected on the ground of delay. According to the Petitioner, her husband died in harness on 23.8.1994 and she applied for compassionate appointment within a year i.e. 21.7.1995 and therefore there was no delay on her part. 3. In the instant case, a Counter Affidavit has been filed wherein at paragraph 5, the Respondents have stated that the Petitioner's husband absented from duty with effect from 10.9.1988 and ultimately died on 23.3.1994 (sic-3.8.1994?) However these statements have been countered in reply to the Counter Affidavit at paragraph 5 wherein it has been stated that the aforementioned allegation of absenteeism is totally baseless and that the Petitioner's husband had never absented from duty. 4. If the Petitioner's husband had in fact absented from duty right from 10.9.1988 to 23.3.1994 (sic-23.8.1994?) (i.e. almost six years) then in that case, this Court is of the opinion. that giving a compassionate appointment to the dependant of a absentee would not be equitable in so far as the Respondents are concerned. However, in the event, the Petitioner's husband had never absented, then her application was within one year the same having been filed on 21.7.1995. 5. In that view of the matter, the order of rejection on the ground that the same was a belated case of 1994 does not appear to be correct. However, whether the Petitioner's husband was absent or not absent are questions of fact which cannot be decided in this writ application. Moreover, the concept underlying the reasons why provisions for compassionate appointment was framed was to safeguard a family from disruption and/or hardships on account of the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family. In other words, matter pertaining to compassionate appointment had to be dealt with instantaneously. Tile petitioner filed her application on 21.7.1995 but we are in the year 2003 and so many years have gone by. Therefore, the concept/object of compassionate appointment by efflux of time, has already been negatived. 6. In other words, matter pertaining to compassionate appointment had to be dealt with instantaneously. Tile petitioner filed her application on 21.7.1995 but we are in the year 2003 and so many years have gone by. Therefore, the concept/object of compassionate appointment by efflux of time, has already been negatived. 6. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner however, will be at liberty to move any other appropriate forum in accordance with law. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.