ORDER Present petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case for compassionate appointment of either of the petitioners. 2. Late Sri K. A. Ansari, husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioner no. 2, who was working with Steel Authority of India, had died in harness on 11.5.1995 at the age of 39 years leaving behind his widow i.e. petitioner no. 1 and 7 minor children including the petitioner no. 2. As per the paragraph nos. 7, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the writ petition, petitioner no. 1 had applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of her husband, and thereafter, on 18.10.2002 once again reminded the respondents to grant compassionate appointment. 3. Respondents have filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit. The specific stand taken by the respondents is that petitioner had never applied immediately after the death of her husband for the compassionate appointment. It has further been asserted that no such application is available on the record of the respondents. Further contention of the respondents is that petitioner infact had applied for the first time on 13.03.2004 for the appointment of her son namely, Md. Jafar Imam on the compassionate ground, copy of which is annexed as annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit and thereafter, had again applied vide application dated 23.04.2004 to appoint her another son namely, Salim Sarwer on compassionate ground, copy of which is annexed as annexure C to the supplementary counter affidavit. It has further been pleaded by the respondents that a person seeking compassionate appointment should approach immediately after the death of the bread winner. Since no application was moved within a reasonable time, therefore, compassionate appointment to the petitioner no. 2, the son of the petitioner no. 1 or in favour of Md. Jafar Imam, another son of the petitioner no. 1 is not possible. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record minutely. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported (2011) 4 SCC 209 in paragraph nos. 18, 19 and 20 has observed as under: “18. Similarly, in SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das this Court has observed that: (SCC p. 566, Para 15) “15. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported (2011) 4 SCC 209 in paragraph nos. 18, 19 and 20 has observed as under: “18. Similarly, in SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das this Court has observed that: (SCC p. 566, Para 15) “15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a mater of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. That the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right.” 19. In V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of A.P. This Court while observing that although appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, yet appointments on compassionate grounds are well-recognised exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies, highlighted the following two well-recognised contingencies as exceptions to the general rule: (Scc P. 7 41, para 18) (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner. 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left wit any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left wit any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” 6. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (supra) law is no more res-integra. A compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee cannot be claimed as a matter of right; it must be provided for in the rules; the compassionate appointment is exception to the scope of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; an application seeking compassionate appointment should be moved immediately under the rules, regulations and schemes, in any case, within the limitation prescribed for applying for the compassionate appointment; an appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on the ground of death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service; compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's families. 7. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the date of death of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioner no. 2 is 11.5.1995. No material is available to say that application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted within a reasonable time. Records suggest that petitioner no. 1 had written one letter in the year 2002 and had applied for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 13.03.2004 in favour of her first son Md. 1 and father of the petitioner no. 2 is 11.5.1995. No material is available to say that application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted within a reasonable time. Records suggest that petitioner no. 1 had written one letter in the year 2002 and had applied for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 13.03.2004 in favour of her first son Md. Jafar Imam and vide letter dated 23.04.2004 in favour of her second son Salim Sarwer. Despite taking specific stand by the respondents that no application was ever moved by the petitioner no. 1 soon after the death of her husband on 11.05.1995, neither rejoinder affidavit has been filed nor any material has been placed on the record to suggest that petitioner in fact has moved an application within reasonable time to seek compassionate appointment in her favour. 8. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, present petition is dismissed.