Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order A.2721/99, dated 8.11.2011, rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that his father, P.Sathyaseelan, was employed as an Office Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, State of Tamil Nadu and while in service, he died on 11.12.1989 at the age of 37 years. He left behind the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner aged 9 years and younger brother aged 5 years, as legal heirs. The mother of the petitioner, being illiterate, could not seek employment on compassionate grounds. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though the father of the petitioner had died on 11.12.1989, an application for compassionate appointment was made in March, 1999 after completion of Plus 2 (XII Standard). It is the case of the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner was scrutinized by the fourth respondent, and after satisfying himself about the eligibility of the petitioner, he recommended his case for appointment to the third respondent, who, in turn, forwarded it to the second respondent and then sent to the first respondent. 4. The first respondent rejected the application on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was made after ten years of the death of the father of the petitioner. 5. In spite of rejection of the representation, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order and rather filed a representation against the rejection order. The ground taken in the representation was that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, therefore he could not apply immediately. It was also pleaded that similarly situated persons were given appointment. The representation was again rejected by the first respondent on 8.11.2001 on the ground of delay in seeking compassionate appointment. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of 2001 only in 2009, i.e., after eight years of rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment. 6. It is well settled law that compassionate appointment is not another source of appointment and is merely a concession. The object of compassionate appointment is to help the family to tide over the immediate financial crisis to which it may be put due to sudden death of only earning member. 6. It is well settled law that compassionate appointment is not another source of appointment and is merely a concession. The object of compassionate appointment is to help the family to tide over the immediate financial crisis to which it may be put due to sudden death of only earning member. No compassionate appointment after lapse of number of years can be claimed. 7. The respondents were therefore right in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment having been made after ten years of death. 8. It may also be noticed that this writ petition further suffers from delay and laches. The order rejecting the request for compassionate appointment passed in the year 2001 which is challenged in the year 2009. This Court in a batch of cases in W.P.No.49346 of 2006 etc. decided on 19.03.2012 (Vinoth Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another) has already held that no compassionate appointment can be granted when the application is belated. No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.