JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.10.1994 as contained in Annexure-5 by which the special Secretary -cum- Deputy Secretary of the Water resources Department has rejected the application of the petitioner dated 11.03.1992 for being appointed on compassionate ground. 2. The facts are that the father of the petitioner died on 25.04.1986, his mother informed the department on 08.09.1987 that his son was a minor and, therefore, he could not apply for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner became major in the year 1990 and applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1992 which was recommended by the Deputy Collector on 12.05.1992 to the concerned Authority. 3. The first circular relating to the appointment on compassionate ground was issued on 12th July, 1977, clause 4 of which provides that, the application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within a period of two years after the death of the government employee. The 1977 Circular was amended by the 1989 Circular by which the time limit for filing an application was extended to five years vide Clause 3 of the said Circular of 1989. In 1991, the Government came out with a third circular which has clearly stated that the circular would come into force from the date of its being issued. It provides in cases where the death of the Government employees takes place prior to the 1991, such cases would be govern by the 1989 Circular. 4. This writ application was filed in the year 1994 and was admitted on 19.03.1996 and has come up for hearing today. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brajendra Prasad Poddar vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 668, paragraph 10 of which, reads as follows:- "10. The petitioners representation against the decision of the authority did not attain finality, when the liberalized employment rule was enforced. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the liberalized employment rule on compassionate ground, his representation being pending on the date when the said rule was brought into effect. The petitioners representation against the decision of the authority did not attain finality, when the liberalized employment rule was enforced. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the liberalized employment rule on compassionate ground, his representation being pending on the date when the said rule was brought into effect. In the case of b. P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. vs. Birendra Kumar Bhowmik ( AIR 1987 SC 1010 ), the Supreme Court held that the liberalized amendments have to be liberally construed so as not to deny its efficacy. Further, the amended rule in question is a beneficial rule to improve the condition and remove the miseries of the family of a person who has dies in harness. In that view of the matter, even if two opinions are possible, one which advances the object ought to be preferred. I see no reason, therefore, to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of 1989 rules, particularly because his representation and/or review petition was pending on the date the rule was brought into force. The State Government in order to advance the object enlarge the period of limitation. Once that is given effect to, the petitioner becomes fully entitled to its benefit, since within five years of the death of his father, he completed his education as also attained majority and his application for consideration of his case was also filed within five years, which remained pending on the date the liberalized rule came into force. In that view of the matter, the petitioner should be considered for employment on a suitable post within a period of two months from the receipt of this order. " 6 Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, submits that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the liberalized rule/guideline and his representation ought to be considered by condoning the delay. 7. In the present case, undoubtedly the petitioner have got the benefit of the circular issued on 25th May, 1989 as his application was made in the year 1992 which remained pending for consideration till the year 1994. Such facts would ordinarily be covered by the decision of the Division Bench. 8. In this case, however, 25 years have elapsed since the death of the father of the petitioner and more than 17 yeas have elapsed since the application was made by the petitioner. Such facts would ordinarily be covered by the decision of the Division Bench. 8. In this case, however, 25 years have elapsed since the death of the father of the petitioner and more than 17 yeas have elapsed since the application was made by the petitioner. The purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the difficulty faced by the family due to the sudden death of the earning member of the family. 9. In these circumstances, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner as the petitioner has not been able to explain by what means and how he was able to sustain himself since 1992/1994 till date and as such this Court thinks that the very purpose for giving appointment on compassionate ground is defeated by the factum of delay (Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ). 10. In the result, this writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.