JUDGEMENT 1. The writ petitioner has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 21.7.2009, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application. 2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner had sought for a direction to be issued to the respondents to appoint her on any suitable post on compassionate ground as her late husband died-in-har-ness on 17.1.1990 while working as a Cobbler on Class-IV post under Respondent No. 4, Commandant, Bihar Military Police (B.M.P.-9), Jamalpur, Munger. 3. Learned Single Judge, after noting the entire facts of the case, namely, that the petitioner-appellant could not get a succession certificate and lost the matter up to the Supreme Court and the succession certificate granted in favour of another lady, Maya Devi, who also claimed to be the widow of the deceased was ultimately revoked on 23.5.1995 in Revocation Case No. 39/1994 filed by the writ petitioner, and thereafter she filed a Title Suit No. 152/2002 in which a declaration was given that she was the legally wedded wife and widow of late Banshidhar Ram, dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that the death had taken place in 1990, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was filed in the year 2008 and thus no direction could be given contrary to the Circulars of the State Government. 4. Apart from the fact that under the Circular of the State Government an application for compassionate appointment has to be filed within a period of five years from the death of an employee in-har-ness, which the appellant failed to do for whatever reason. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others : (1994)4 SCC 138 that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased Government employee to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread earner and thus the same cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period of time, which must be specified in the Rules, since the consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. 5. In view of the aforsaid proposition, there is no warrant to interfere with the order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. 5. In view of the aforsaid proposition, there is no warrant to interfere with the order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.