JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir 1. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents either to grant appointment on compassionate ground or to reconsider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground, on the ground taken in the memo of writ petition. 2. Facts of the case, as pleaded, are that father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2, expired on 1st August, 1999, while in service with the respondent-Bank. In March, 2000, petitioner No.2 i.e. widow of the deceased employee and mother of petitioner No.1, applied to the respondent-Bank for appointment on compassionate ground, which application came to be rejected by the respondent-Bank on 20th September, 2000. 3. Thereafter, on 15th September, 2004, petitioner No.1, being the son of the deceased employee, applied seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which application was also rejected by the respondent-Bank on 23rd June, 2005. Petitioner No.1 remained contended with the order of rejection and suddenly, thereafter on 12th May, 2009, filed the instant writ petition. It is not understandable that once the claim of petitioner No.2 i.e. widow stood rejected in the year 2000, how the claim projected by petitioner No.1, (son), was tenable. Be that as it may. 4. The aim and object of providing compassionate appointment to the dependants of a deceased-employee is to provide immediate succour to the family, which, on the sudden death of the employee, may find itself in a state of destitution. In the instant case, after the death of the employee in the year 1999, the widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground at the first instance, which application was rejected in the year 2000. Thereafter, in the year 2004, the son of the deceased employee applied for appointment, which application was also rejected by the respondent-Bank in the year 2005. The petitioners remained silent till the year 2009, when they filed the instant writ petition. The petitioners are caught by the doctrine of delay, laches and waiver. 5. Viewed thus, read with the conduct of the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the very purpose of granting compassionate appointment has lost its efficacy by efflux of time. 6. Having said so, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.