ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment because of death of her husband who has expired 19th November, 1991 while in service of the respondents. 2. Counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground that the very purpose for compassionate appointment has now been frustrated because of lapse of approximately two decades. 3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. Moreover, the petitioner is claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased employee, namely late Rameshwar Oraon, but another lady has also claimed to be the wife of late Rameshwar Oraon and she has also filed her claim for compassionate appointment of her son, namely Nandkishore Oraon. The claim of the Nandkishore Oraon is that his mother Jayanti Devi is the first wife of the deceased employee Shri Ramehswar Oraon who has expired during the course of his employment with the respondents. Though it appears that there are two wives of late Shri Rameshwar Oraon – one is Jaynati Devi and another is this petitioner. Already a claim is pending before the respondents authorities of one Shri Nandkishore Oraon, who is the son of first wife of late Rameshwar Oraon. Petitioner being the second wife, the claim cannot be entertained by the respondents and therefore, an order has been passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the present petitioner and in view of this fact, this petition may not be entertained by this Court. 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 application mainly for the following grounds: ­ (i) Father of the petitioner, who was serving with the respondents, expired during course of employment in April, 1972 and the petitioner, being son of the deceased employee, has preferred this writ petition in the year 2011. (ii) It appears that approximately 40 years has lapsed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner and, thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. (ii) It appears that approximately 40 years has lapsed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner and, thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. (iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC 412 , especially at paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6, has held 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 dependant 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 appointments. 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.'” (Emphasis supplied) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC 192 , especially at paragraph nos. 2 and 3, has held as under: “2. 2 and 3, has held 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 21.4.1997 that the application is time­barred. 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 breadearner 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and also looking to the fact that approximately two decades have lapsed after the death of the deceased employee, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Hence there is no substance in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.