Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appear to be that the father of the petitioner, Shri Amarshinh Dalpatsinh Chauhan, while working as a driver with the respondent Corporation had met with an accident and he had sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was declared as medically unfit and, therefore, his services were terminated by the respondent Corporation. On 28.7.1992, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the post of clerk, as per the settlement of the Corporation with Union. The Corporation vide letter dated 2.2.1993 intimated to the petitioner that for the post of clerk he is above the prescribed age, therefore, he cannot be considered for the post of clerk, but if he is desirous to work on the post of helper, the application can be considered and the undertaking was also called for, for not to claim any further benefits. On 8.3.1993, the petitioner forwarded a letter to the Corporation that he is desirous to work as helper and he would not claim any right for the post of clerk. On 10.3.1993, an inquiry was made by the Corporation as to whether his family is having any income or not and as to the activities of the other members of the family. The petitioner supplied further informations. Thereafter, it appears that the correspondences were also made and ultimately vide letter dated 2.3.1995, the petitioner was communicated by the Corporation that his brother is working as constable in Dungarpur and the petitioner is staying together in joint family and the income is exceeding Rs. 1,500/-, therefore, the petitioner cannot be offered compassionate appointment. It is under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition. 2. Heard Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanghvi for Mr. Dagli, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 3. It is undisputed position that as per the settlement entered into by the Corporation with its employee vide Clause No. 30, if any of the employee has been relieved or terminated because of the physical disability, the dependent member of the family can be offered appointment on compassionate ground for Class-III or Class-IV. It is also undisputed position that the father of the petitioner was working with the respondent Corporation and since he was declared medically unfit as per the medical certificate, his services were terminated. It is also undisputed position that the father of the petitioner was working with the respondent Corporation and since he was declared medically unfit as per the medical certificate, his services were terminated. In view of Clause 30 of the Settlement of S.T. Corporation, the right had accrued to the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment. It also appears that the Corporation at one time had shown willingness to offer compassionate appointment on Class-IV post of helper, to which the petitioner had agreed but the appointment has not been offered. The ground of denying the compassionate appointment is that the brother of the petitioner is working as constable in Rajasthan and in the affidavit-in-reply, it has been stated that the said fact was suppressed and based on the income of the brother, treating the family as joint family, it is found by the Corporation that the income exceeds Rs. 1,500/- p.m., therefore, the compassionate appointment cannot be extended as per the Standing Order No. 361/1973. 4. The pertinent aspect is that the Standing Order No. 361 of 1973 would get superseded by the express settlement entered into between the Corporation and its employee. Therefore, as such the basis of denying the compassionate appointment on account of the Standing Order No. 361 of 1973 can hardly be sustained. Further, even if it is considered for the sake of examination that there were instructions by way of Standing Order for applying the policy of the Government of income limit while offering compassionate appointment, then also such instructions cannot be read to nullify the binding settlement between the Corporation and its staff. The another aspect is that the income, which is considered for denying the compassionate appoint is the income of an adult, brother of the petitioner, who is working as a constable in another State. If any adult member of a family is employed and maintains his separate family, such can hardly be construed as a valid ground for nullifying the effect of the binding settlement. Further, the income limit provided for denying the compassionate appointment is held to be invalid by this Court in its various decisions in Special Civil Application No. 38 of 2008 decided on 24.1.2008 as well as in Special Civil Application No. 5498 of 2009 decided on 28.10.2009 and allied matters. Further, the income limit provided for denying the compassionate appointment is held to be invalid by this Court in its various decisions in Special Civil Application No. 38 of 2008 decided on 24.1.2008 as well as in Special Civil Application No. 5498 of 2009 decided on 28.10.2009 and allied matters. Not only that, but thereafter, the Government has also deleted the disqualification of any income limit to any of its dependent members of its employees for seeking compassionate appointment. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that when the petitioner was fulfilling the criteria for compassionate appointment and the settlement provided for compassionate appointment, in the circumstances of termination on the ground of medically unfit, the action for denial of compassionate appointment cannot be sustained. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation empathetically contended that the father of the petitioner was terminated as back as in the year 1992 and the rejection was in the year 1995, the petition was filed in the year 1997, therefore, in the year 2010, this Court may not direct for compassionate appointment since the family has survived throughout. In support of his contention, he has relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court i.e., (i) Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC, 481; (ii) M/s.Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SC, 2534; and (iii) I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, reported in (2007) 6 SCC, 162 and further contended that if the family has survived for all this period, and if the compassionate appointment is offered now, the purpose would be frustrated, therefore, this Court may decline to exercise the power for issuing appropriate writ. 6. It is true that the purpose of offering compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family members of the employee, but if there is express settlement creating right in favour of the family members of the employee and creating obligation upon the Corporation - employer, the same can hardly be nullified on the ground of the purpose of compassionate appointment as sought to be canvassed. The matter further deserves to be considered in light of the facts and circumstances that the petitioner did apply well in time, the policy provides for offering compassionate appointment, the petitioner also agreed to accepting the lower post and the denial is on the ground, which cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, if the ground on which the compassionate appointment denied is unsustainable in law and settlement expressly provides for compassionate appointment coupled with the circumstances that the petition was filed in the year 1997 and has remained pending till today, it would not be a valid ground to dis-entitle the relief to the petitioner on the ground as sought to be canvassed. It is true that the circumstances which have accrued pending the petition are required to be taken into consideration but if the litigant has approached well in time before this Court and during the period when the right was subsisting, it would be unreasonable to deny the relief on a mere ground that the petition has remained pending for a long time before this Court. The delay, if any, should cause prejudice to none of the parties to the proceedings, since neither of the parties could be said to be responsible for the cause of delay, nor any party to the proceedings is entitled to contend that since the final hearing could not take place within a reasonable time and the petition remained pending for a long time, the relief should be denied to the other party. If such is entertained, it would result into encouraging the respondent Corporation to reap the benefit, which otherwise is not permissible in law, but it would also equally result into negating the relief to the party, who is otherwise entitled as per law. 7. In case of Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court at paragraph 9, after considering the rule expressly recorded that there is a time-limit prescribed for making of an application by the candidate concerned, therefore, the observations were made. In case of M/s.Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar & Ors. (Supra) the claim for compassionate appointment was made and granted 12 years after the death of the employee. In case of I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. In case of M/s.Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar & Ors. (Supra) the claim for compassionate appointment was made and granted 12 years after the death of the employee. In case of I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (Supra) the Apex Court has observed that strict compliance to the terms and conditions for offering of the compassionate appointment, which, in any case, would stand satisfied if the criteria of the Standing Order are to be considered. In none of the cases, it has been observed that if the petition has remained pending for 13 years before this Court, the relief should be denied to the party, though at the time when the petition was filed, the right was subsisting and notwithstanding the petitioner succeeds on merits. Hence, the aforesaid decisions are of no help to the respondent Corporation. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned decision of the respondent Corporation for denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner cannot be sustained, hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside, therefore, quashed and set aside. It is further directed that the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner as eligible for the compassionate appointment on the post of helper and shall offer appointment as early as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. However, the appointment shall remain prospective and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of benefit with retrospective effect is not granted. 9. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.