ORDER 1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Pappu Kumar Das seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground as his father who was a Driver ( in Police Department), died in harness on 27.3.1986. 2. From the pleadings made in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner’s father late Bhagirath Das was a Driver ( Arakshi No. 279) and was posted under the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Supaul. After completing 17 years of service the petitioner’s father died in harness on 27.3.1986. It has been averred that late Bhagirath Das on his death, left behind him, the widow, daughter aged about nine years and three sons aged about three years, four years and one year. The petitioner has stated that his date of birth to be 18.10.1985. Apparently on the death of his father the petitioner was less than a year. The case of the petitioner is that there was no source of income in the family after the death of his father and therefore petitioner’s mother sent an application to the concerned authority to appoint Suresh Paswan on compassionate ground. Suresh Paswan has been described as petitioner’s uncle. 3. Petitioner has brought on record the letter dated 12.2.1988 (Annexure-2) of the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Bihar Patna, whereby a direction was made to the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa that if Suresh Das fulfilled the criteria of physical measurement, he be appointed as constable. From another letter dated 2.6.1995(Annexure-3), it will appear that Superintendent of Police, Saharsa had written a letter to the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Welfare) stating that if the physical measurement/standard conditions were relaxed, the petitioner could be appointed. He made specific request in his letter dated 2.6.1995 that the physical measurement in terms of height for Suresh Das should be relaxed and necessary orders be passed for his appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his brother Bhagirath Das, the deceased employee. This communication goes to show that person who had applied for compassionate appointment on the death of the deceased employee Bhagrirath Das did not fulfill eligibility criteria for the post of Constable. I would add here that he cannot be described as the dependant of the deceased employee for the purposes of grant of compassionate appointment being brother of the deceased employee. I would add here that he cannot be described as the dependant of the deceased employee for the purposes of grant of compassionate appointment being brother of the deceased employee. From the pleadings it appears that nearly sixteen years thereafter, the petitioner i.e., son of the deceased employee approached the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa (Respondent No.3) now seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. The communication dated 12.3.2011 is Annexure-4 to the writ application. 4. In the background of the facts stated above, complaining that in spite of his representation dated 12.3.2011; the petitioner has not been appointed on compassionate ground, he approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. It has been repeatedly held in various pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court that the purpose of Compassionate appointment is solely to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to sudden death of sole breadwinner. It is an exception to the general rule that appointment to the public service should be on merit only. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship caused to the death of the deceased employee and such appointments are required to be provided immediately to the family in the distress. 6. Reference may be made to a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 42 ( Local Administration Department and another vs. M. Selvanayagam alias Kumaravelu), wherein in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgment the Apex Court held as follows:- “11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependants is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies, etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time-limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasized is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. 13. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on 2.7.1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father’s death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to subserve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service.” 7. The law laid down by the Apex Court as referred to above is fully applicable in the present case. 8. In view of the above, I find that even on the basis of the pleadings in the writ application, no case is made out for a direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground after nearly 26 years of the death of the deceased Government servant. 9. The writ application is therefore dismissed.