JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the all the respondents, and hence the service is complete. 2. The delay of 15 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 3. Heard' the parties on merit. 4. Admittedly, the employee died on 9.5.1995 and sought for compassionate appointment and according to the appellant, the appellant submitted the application for compassionate appointment in the year 1995 itself. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, even when the appellant was facing criminal trial of fake allegation of committing murder of his own father, he tried to pursue, for compassionate appointment in the year 1998 and ultimately his application was rejected vide order dated 14th March, 2009 (Annexure-6), whereas according to the Respondent, the applicant moved the application on 11.3.2006 i.e., after a lapse of ten years and therefore, his application was rejected. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has observed that since the petitioner was facing the trial for the alleged murder of his father and that was treated to be one of the grounds for rejection of his claim, which is not justified in the eye of law as the appellant was acquitted ultimately. 6. Be that as it may, for the sake of argument, the petitioner's father died in the year 1995 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1995 itself and his claim was rejected in the year 2009. These facts itself clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was not vigilant for his right if it was available to him as he did not approach this Court by way of filing writ application forthwith in a reasonable period of time and he took shelter by moving this application after rejection of his claim in the year 2009. All these facts clearly demonstrate that this is nothing but a luxury litigation and nothing more. Hence, on this ground also the writ petitioner cannot be entitled to any relief. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.