JUDGMENT : Ravi Shankar Jha, J. 1. Heard Shri S.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking compassionate appointment on the ground of death of his father who died on 12.11.1998. The petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased has filed this petition after a long lapse of more than 16 years seeking compassionate appointment. It is stated that the petitioner's mother who was getting family pension has also died on 15.8.2013 after which the petitioner has filed the representation seeking compassionate appointment but no decision thereon has been taken by the respondents/authorities hence this petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that the petitioner had died in the year 1998 and the application for compassionate appointment had been filed for the first time on 7.4.2000 but the same was not pursued. The petitioner after the death of his mother has filed a representation in the year 2013. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a right and is given in exceptional circumstances which are a result of the death of a Government servant and is granted for mitigating the immediate need of the remaining members of the family which arises on account of the death of the bread winner. The Supreme Court in the cases of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 and Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, (2007) 1 SCC 192 and State of Jammu & Kashmir and others vs. Sajad Ahmad Mir, (2006) 1 SCC 192, has held that in such circumstances application for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained after several years as the lapse of time in itself indicates that there was no immediate and mitigating circumstances warranting compassionate appointment as the family has been able to survive without the bread winner for a considerable period of time. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the representation of the petitioner may be directed to be considered. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, has held that petitions that are filed after considerable delay and latches espousing dead cases cannot be reopened by issuing directions by the High Court for consideration of the representation in the following terms:- "14. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, has held that petitions that are filed after considerable delay and latches espousing dead cases cannot be reopened by issuing directions by the High Court for consideration of the representation in the following terms:- "14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961 (SCC pp. 122-123, para 9)- "9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored." 15. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches." 16. A court or tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." 6. In the circumstances, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the petition filed by the petitioner being misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed.