JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred for getting compassionate appointment because of the death of father of the present petitioner which has taken place on 21st April, 1988. 2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who has mainly submitted that the lather of the petitioner has expired on 21st April, 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation in the Year, 1991 for his appointment on compassionate ground when he was still a minor. The petitioner became major in the Year, 1996 and as there is no appointment on the compassionate basis by the respondents, the present petition has been preferred in the year, 2008. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that the claim made for compassionate appointment is highly time-barred and as such, no useful purpose will be served as the father of the petitioner expired way back in the Year, 1988. There is a gross delay in preferring this writ petition, even otherwise, also first representation for such appointment made in the Year, 1991 after lapse of a period of three years when the petitioner was still minor and submitted that if longer period is lapsed after the death of the employee, no compassionate appointment may be given as it looses the very purpose meant for. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition for compassionate appointment mainly facts the following facts and reasons: (i) the father of the present petitioner expired on 21st April, 1988, who was serving with the respondents. (ii) the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the Year, 1991 as well as in the Year, 1996, when petitioner attained at the age of majority and thereafter, this writ petition has been preferred in the Year, 2008. (iii) thus, it appears that by now more than two decades period is over after the death of the fathers of the present petitioner, no useful purpose will be served for passing an order of compassionate appointment Compassionate appointment is generally given to support the dependents of the deceased employee immediately after the death of the employee. By now approximately twenty years have been over and family of the deceased is getting support from other sources. By now approximately twenty years have been over and family of the deceased is getting support from other sources. (iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412 , especially in Paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6, which read as under: 4. Seventeen years after the death of his father, the respondent on 8.1.1986 made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court This writ petition was allowed by the High court and an appeal from the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court Hence the State has filed the present appeal. 5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased! Government servant None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case. 6. We may, in this connection refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed: The reason for making compassionate appointment which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family. (v) It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 192 thereof read as under: 2. (v) It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 192 thereof read as under: 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar: Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above Judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21st April, 1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned Counsel has placed before us a Judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts. 3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1998, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. In view of the aforesaid decision also, no useful purpose will be served or grant of compassionate appointment after twenty long years. 5. In view of the aforesaid decisions also if much more period is lapsed after the death of the employee, the purpose of compassionate appointment will not be served. There is no substance in this writ petition and hence, the same, is hereby, dismissed.