JUDGMENT 1. By Court.--The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly. I.A. No. 4267 of 2010 stands disposed of 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the case. 3. The petitioner-respondent claimed compassionate appointment due to the death of his mother, who died on 6th March, 1992. The respondent-petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment, which was duly considered and accepted vide order dated 9th March, 1995 and that was made subject to the medical examination. In the medical examination, the applicant/respondent was found to be aged 16 years and merely on this ground, the appointment was denied to the respondent-petitioner. The respondent-petitioner then after becoming major, submitted application on 5th May, 1997 and that was rejected in the year 1998. The Union raised the dispute on behalf of the respondent and the matter was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal, who by order dated 7th March, 2005 answered the dispute in favour of the respondent-applicant and held that rejection of the claim of the respondent by the appellant was illegal and therefore, the respondent be given appointment on compassionate ground. The award of the Labour Court dated 7th Mach, 2005 was challenged by the management by preferring a writ petition vide W.P. (L) No. 5404 of 2005, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2010. Hence this L.P.A. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment and can be given only in a case of death of an employee, who dies in harness and such appointments cannot be given after an inordinate delay and therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 29.9.2010 and the award, passed by the Labour Court, dated 7th March, 2005 may be set aside. 5. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant considered the case of the respondent-employee for compassionate appointment but he was not found suitable for appointment at the time of death of his mother as the respondent was of the age of 16 years and the appointment was denied to him in the year 1995 after three years from the time of death of the mother of the respondent. The respondent pursued his remedy by moving another application and after rejection although an application was moved before the Labour Court and the labour Court passed the award in favour of the respondent. In this fact situation it is not a case where the applicant/respondent sought the compassionate appointment after a delay of several years and in the situation, the delay after 1998, cannot be attributed to the respondent-applicant. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order, passed by the learned single Judge as well as the order of the Labour Court. 6. Hence, this Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the effect of the award may be given by the appellant within a period of one month from today. Appeal dismissed.