JUDGMENT Heard Shri Gopal Narain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Shri G.D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The sole purpose for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Dying-in-harness Rules is to mitigate the financial condition of the family which falls upon them on the death of the bread earner. The entire purpose is to grant an appointment immediately upon the death of the bread earner so that the family does not suffer from any financial crisis. But where applications are filed after a decade or more than the purpose of such an appointment loses its significance and such an application tentamounts to the misuse of the provisions of the Dying-in-harness Rules. One such glaring example is the present one. The petitioner’s father died in the year 1990 when he was two years old. He applied for an appointment on compassionate ground upon attaining the age of majority after 19 years, in the year 2004 which has remained pending and consequently has filed the present writ petition for issuance of a mandamus commanding the authority to decide his application. 3. Normally, an innocuous prayer like this can be granted directing the authority to decide such an application but, on a closer scrutiny, one finds that this application is totally belated. It is also come on record that the deceased family comprised of a widow and a daughter who had also applied earlier but the application on her behalf was rejected on the ground of being under age. Nothing has come forward to indicated that the deceased widow had applied for an appointment in her own capacity. 4. The mere fact that the petitioner and the deceased family members have survived from 1990 till date was a clear indication that there was no financial crisis in the family which would require an appointment on compassionate grounds. This period, which has elapsed is, a clear indication that such an appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is patently belated and, as such, this application cannot be considered by the authority at such a belated stage. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is patently belated and, as such, this application cannot be considered by the authority at such a belated stage. The mere fact that the petitioner has attained the age of majority does not give any concession to the petitioner to bring his application within the period of limitation. The period of limitation under the Dying-in-harness Rules is five years from the date of the death of the deceased. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.