Judgment :- P.D. Kode, J. 1. By present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, elder son and widow of one Ramakant Akkawar then working as IV Grade employee in Zilla Parishad Boys High School at Kharus, Tahsil – Umarkhed, District - Yavatmal and died on 26.5.1975 have prayed for – (i) appointment of commission for investigation regarding arbitrary actions and inaction of respondent no.2 and misleading contradictory behaviour of officers of Yavtamal Zilla Parishad. (ii) directing respondent no.1 – State for giving response to proposal dated 11.8.1995 made by respondent no.2 regarding employment on compassionate ground to petitioners. Directing respondent no.2 for appointing petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground with Yavatmal Zilla Parishad or (iii) alternatively directing respondent no.2 for giving heavy compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental, physical and economic injustice caused to them. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners in consonance with statements made in the petition has urged that: (i) after death of husband of petitioner no.2 since it became difficult for her to survive along with three minor children, vide application Annexure-I dated 26.5.1976, she applied to respondent no.2 for giving her employment on compassionate ground as per the scheme for compassionate appointment implemented in Yavatmal Zilla Parishad as her husband had died while in service with said Zilla Parishad. However, she did not get any response and communication to same from respondent no.2. (ii) in the year 1989 after petitioner no.1 became major and acquired qualification of SSC he applied for appointment in Class IV grade with respondent no.2 on 18.12.1990. However, again no response was received from respondent no.2. (iii) respondent no.2 vide Annexure-II dated 16.9.1991 though acknowledged receipt of the application dated 18.12.1990, but informed petitioner no. 1 that his application was not within limitation as he had to apply within five years after occurrence of death of his father and hence same could not be considered. (iv) since there was no source of livelihood for petitioner no.1 he again applied to respondent no.2 on 13.9.1991 to consider his claim on compassionate ground. (v) respondent no.2 vide Annexure-III dated 26.6.1991 informed that his application cannot be taken into consideration as same was not within the limitation as per the requirement of the scheme and further informed that if his mother petitioner no.2 had made an application then they would have definitely considered her claim. (v) respondent no.2 vide Annexure-III dated 26.6.1991 informed that his application cannot be taken into consideration as same was not within the limitation as per the requirement of the scheme and further informed that if his mother petitioner no.2 had made an application then they would have definitely considered her claim. (vi) in view of the same petitioner no.2 sent letter of reminder/application dated 17.2.1993 pointing that in the year 1976, she had applied for appointment on compassionate ground but till the date respondent no.2 having not send any response/communication, her son petitioner no.1 should be appointed instead of her. (vii) respondent no.2 vide Annexure-IV dated 18.2.1993 informed that though petitioner no.2 had applied in the year 1976 since her husband had expired in the year 1975 and the scheme of compassionate appointment was implemented by Yavatmal Zilla Parishad since 14.5.1976 she was not entitled for employment. (viii) one Satish Laxman Tapre whose father had expired in the year 1973 had also applied with respondent no.2 on 3.9.1991 i.e. after himself attaining majority and respondent no.2 vide Annexure-V dated 26.9.1991 has rejected his claim on the count of same being not within limitation as his father had expired in the year 1973 and scheme of compassionate appointment was implemented by Yavatmal Zilla Parishad from year 1974. (ix) all the said contradictory replies given by respondent no.2 demonstrate of hot and cold game being played with the poor petitioners and they have been deprived benefits of the Government Scheme for giving timely reliefs to family members of the deceased who had expired while in service of Zilla Parishad. (x) upon petitioner no.1 pointing out arbitrary action on part of officers of Yavatmal Zilla Parishad to Divisional Commissioner, Amravati for taking action and for considering his claim for appointment on compassionate ground vide letter dated 7.12.1993, Divisional Commissioner vide letter dated 5.1.1994 had directed respondent no.2 for investigating the matter and for taking immediate action and sending compliance report. (xi) however respondent no.2 repeated the same reply vide Annexure-VII dated 4.2.1994 of scheme of compassionate appointment being implemented in Yavatmal Zilla Parishad from 14.5.1976 and hence petitioners being not entitled to seek the benefits. (xi) however respondent no.2 repeated the same reply vide Annexure-VII dated 4.2.1994 of scheme of compassionate appointment being implemented in Yavatmal Zilla Parishad from 14.5.1976 and hence petitioners being not entitled to seek the benefits. (xii) since petitioner no.1 was struggling for livelihood he again requested respondent no.2 to consider his claim as a special case by granting him appointment to avoid causing of social and economic injustice to him and in response to same respondent no.2 had sent proposal dated 11.8.1995 to Section Officer, Ministry of Rural and Irrigation Development of respondent no.1 for seeking the guidelines. Thereafter petitioner no.1 made representation dated 12.10.1998 to said Ministry. However, till filing of petition, he never received any response from respondent no.1 and his file continued to remain pending with respondent no.2. Petitioner no.1 also made representation to respondent no.2 and to Chief Minister for giving him justice. (xiii) petitioner no.1came to know of one Arjunsingh s/o Chhotusingh Senegar was appointed in the year 1982 Annexure-XII on compassionate ground in place of his deceased elder brother who had expired in the year 1974 as revealed from Annexure-XI. (xiv) respondent no.2 vide reply Annexure-XV dated 4.7.2006 replied to applications made by petitioner no.1 under Right of Information Act for giving information about his appointment that since matter was ten years old, the information about the same was not available and would be informed as and when they would receive the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus urged that all said matters pointed out by her clearly reveals that respondent no.2 has acted arbitrarily in the matter of giving appointment on compassionate ground as in many cases relatives of the appointees expired in the year 1973, 1974 and 1975 were appointed and enjoying the benefits, while dependents like petitioners are suffering from arbitrary action/inaction of respondent no.2 are suffering. She further urged that arbitrary inaction of respondent no.2 is self evident from contradictory replies given by respondent no.2 and pointed out by her. She thus urged for allowing the petition. 4. She further urged that arbitrary inaction of respondent no.2 is self evident from contradictory replies given by respondent no.2 and pointed out by her. She thus urged for allowing the petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 prayed for dismissal of the petition by making the submission in consonance with stand taken by respondent no.2 in submissions filed for opposing the petition and urged that: (I) petition has been filed in the year 2007 belatedly by elder son and widow of deceased employee after about 32 years after his death which occurred on 26.5.1975 is liable to be dismissed on the said count alone in view of petitioners now being not entitled for any relief; (II) application made by petitioner no.2 on 26.5.1976 was rejected as she was not possessing require minimum education qualification i.e. passing of 4th Standard Examination as required under the rules for appointment for Class IV post in accordance with G.R. Dated 23.4.1976; (III) petitioner no.1 born on 11.12.1970 had applied on 18.12.1990 for appointment on compassionate ground i.e. after being of age more than 19 years i.e. not immediately after attaining the majority and as such he was not entitled for appointment sought belatedly. (IV) father of petitioner no.1 and husband of petitioner no.2 having died on 26.5.1975 i.e. much prior to 14.5.1976 i.e. date since which scheme of appointment of compassionate ground on account of death of Zilla Parishad employee was made applicable, they are not entitled for benefit under the said scheme and accordingly respondent no.2 had informed Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati vide letter Annexure-VII (V) respondent no.1 had not given any guidelines to proposal at Annexure-VIII sent by respondent no.2 regarding compassionate appointment of petitioners. (VI) with regard to identical case of Ramrao Marotrao Wankhede, who had died on 2.8.1974 respondent no.1 vide letter dated 26.5.1986 had informed that scheme of compassionate appointment being applicable to Zilla Parishad employees w.e.f. 14.5.1976, the relatives of the said deceased were not entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment since Ramrao Marotrao Wankhede had died prior to the said date. (VII) Thus petitioners being not entitled for benefits under the said scheme, they are not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground nor for any of the reliefs as sought as petitioners are trying to make mountain out of the mole on account of mistake having crept in mentioning the date of applicability of the scheme in letter Annexure-V. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perusal the record the only point which arises for consideration is “whether petitioners or any of them being entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.? 6. During the course of argument, learned counsel has pointed out the decision in a case of Santosh Kumar Dubey .vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 481 ). The perusal of the said decisions reveals that therein while considering the claim for appointment on compassionate ground made by mother of Police Constable who was untraceable since the year 1981 in Writ Petition filed in 2002 which was dismissed by Allahabad High Court, the apex court was pleased to observe in paragraph no.11 to 13 as under: “11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service. 13. In the present case, the father of the appellant became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family could survive and successfully faced and overcome the financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member. That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. In the present case, the father of the appellant became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family could survive and successfully faced and overcome the financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member. That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.” (emphasis supplied by this Court) 7. Though after perusal of the record we find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners of respondent no.2 that respondent no.2 having not promptly informed petitioner no.2 the reason of herself being not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground due to herself not possessing requisite qualification she was deprived of an opportunity to secure the same within the period as prescribed in the scheme and/or respondent no.2 then having chosen to keep silence or respondent no.2 during reply given to application dated 13.9.1991 made by the petitioners and, thereafter during replies given from to time to applications made by the petitioners or by one Satish Laxman Tapre having taken different stand regarding matters of appointment on compassionate ground or one Arjunsingh s/o Chhotusingh Senegar was appointed in place of his brother in spite of his brother having died in the year 1974, clearly reveals of there being variance in the reasons advanced for not giving the benefit of the scheme and/or the date of applicability of the scheme to the employees of Zilla Parishad; still it is difficult to accept that because of the same the petitioners can be said to have made out a case for granting reliefs as sought in the petition belatedly preferred by them. 8. We are of such a considered opinion as above cited self eloquent observations from the decision of apex court make it abundantly clear that appointments on compassionate grounds are predominantly to be made for enabling the families of the deceased to tide over financial constraints occurred to the death of bread winner of the family and thus there should be proximity in between such death and appointment to be made. Similarly such appointment should not be allowed to assume colour of getting Government service as a matter of right or making the same as a source of recruitment for dependents of deceased employee. On the backdrop of aforesaid principle, considering fact of Ramakant Akkawar having died in the year 1975, it is difficult to accept prayer for appointment on compassionate ground made in petition filed about 32 years. Though it is true that respondent no.2 had not informed petitioner no.2 immediately after she had applied for appointment still petitioners then having not immediately approached Court thereafter or even immediately after receipt of replies dated 26.6.1991 and 18.2.1993 and even petitioner no.1 having not immediately applied to respondent no.2 for such appointment after attaining majority makes us difficult to accept the prayer. Needless to add appointment on compassionate ground being germene to reasons explained by the apex court and since it is difficult to perceive existence of such reasons for petitioners while preferring the petition belatedly 32 years after death of Ramakant Akkawar or after about 20 years after petitioner no.1 attaining the majority. 9. Though we have noticed that the stand taken by respondent no.2 from time to time was not consistent regarding the matter of appointment on compassionate ground for dependents of deceased employee of Yavatmal Zilla Parishad and particularly with regard to the petitioners and so also for one Shri Satish Laxman Tapre and Arjunsing or even learned counsel for respondent no.2 was not able to convince us of the same being in consonance with the scheme implemented in Yavatmal Zilla Parishad still the present petition being not in nature of as Public Interest Litigation, it is difficult to accept of any case being spelt out from the same for giving directions for appointment of commission as prayed by petitioners on the basis of stray incidents referred in the petition. Similarly there being no proximity of time in between death of Ramakant and the date on which the petition is preferred and existence of need of compassionate appointment for petitioners on the date of petition or even presently, we find no merit in the prayer for directions of nature as sought by the petitioners against respondent nos.1 and 2. Thus we find no merit in the present petition except the prayer made for compensation to some extent. 10. Thus we find no merit in the present petition except the prayer made for compensation to some extent. 10. We are of such considered view due to conduct of respondent no.2 in driving dependents of their deceased employee from door to door due to himself having failed to take and communicate prompt decision regarding the claim petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be a conduct expected from higher officer of Government institution. Having regard to the same for making the necessary amends for the same, we order respondent no.2 to pay a compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to petitioners for serving ends of justice within a period of eight weeks. 11. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.