JUDGMENT : Re: CAN 8461 of 2014 & CAN 8460 of 2014 (sec. 5) These are the applications for condonation of delay. 2. Causes being sufficient, delay is condoned. 3. The applications for condonation of delay are, thus, disposed of. 4. There would be no order as to costs. 5. These two appeals would have a chequered history. A canteen boy of State Bank of India drawing a meagre sum of Rs. 3,000 and odds died at the age of 40 years leaving him surviving widow who was getting a paltry sum of Rs. 1735/- per month. She could only master resources to approach this Court after seven years in 2004 when her prayer was rejected being belated one. The learned Single Judge, however, also considered the issue on merit. Her prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Bank on the ground that she was getting a pension and having a mutual benefit policy. The appellant was not properly advised. She did not prefer any appeal from the said order contemporaneously and filed a further writ petition that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed following the principle of res judicata. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant has now filed two appeals - one from the parent order and the other from the second order, referred to above. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rauth, learned counsel appearing for the Bank. 8. The second appeal cannot be maintained as we find that the learned Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of res judicata. 9. On the other appeal we have just now condoned the delay of ten years as we find, it was a case of sheer wrong advice. We can well appreciate that the lady could not get proper legal advice in absence of proper resources. She perhaps was not aware of availing the benefit of legal aid. 10. Be that as it may, even we consider the order of the learned Single Judge on merit in case of first appeal, at this juncture we would not be in a position to interfere. The boy died in 1997, seventeen years have passed. The issue of compassionate appointment cannot be considered at this stage. We do not find any scope of interference on that score. 11. Hence, the subject appeal would also fail and as such is dismissed. 12. The boy died in 1997, seventeen years have passed. The issue of compassionate appointment cannot be considered at this stage. We do not find any scope of interference on that score. 11. Hence, the subject appeal would also fail and as such is dismissed. 12. Before parting with, we would request the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, to sympathetically consider as to whether any exgratia and/or compensation could be paid to the victim family. We are prompted to say so taking a cue from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & another v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 . 13. There would be no order as to costs. 14. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.