Order : Aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dated 23.04.2013, the petitioner has approached this court, challenging the same. An application for grant of compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order. 2. The father of the petitioner was working in the Central Coalfields Limited as Timber Mazdoor. He died on 26.07.1996, in harness. On the death of the workman, an application was filed, seeking appointment on compassionate ground for Joseph Purti, who was the elder son of the deceased. It is admitted that the application of compassionate appointment, in respect of Joseph Purti was rejected on the ground of delay. It is pertinent to mention here, that the said application was barred by two months only. At relevant time, the time limit for filing an application for compassionate appointment, was six months from the date of death of the employee, whereas the said application was filed after eight months. The said rejection order was not challenged. 3. The present petitioner, who is the brother of Joseph Purti and son of the deceased, applied afresh for grant of compassionate appointment, on the ground that the Central Coalfields Limited, has issued a Circular on 21.01.2012, taking a decision to reopen the cases which were earlier rejected on the ground of limitation, provided that the application in those cases should have been filed within one and half years from the date of death of the employee. This gave the petitioner, as a cause of action, for filing of a fresh application. His application was subsequently considered and rejected on 23.04.2014, on the ground that, the compassionate appointment is not transferable and after expiry of 15 years 8 months, from the date of death, of the employee, the application was filed, as such there is no necessity of appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. Aggrieved by the said order the instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Coalfields Limited had failed to take into consideration, that, as per their own Circular dated 21.01.2012, the C.C.L was duty bound to reconsider the earlier rejected cases. It has also been submitted that since the brother of the petitioner, (who was the son of the deceased employee and the first applicant), went missing, thus petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. It has also been submitted that since the brother of the petitioner, (who was the son of the deceased employee and the first applicant), went missing, thus petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. Lastly, he submits that his case had to be considered and he has to be appointed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the C.C.L submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that in fact, the claim of the compassionate appointment is not transferable. The case of the petitioner was treated to be a fresh application and since the same was admittedly filed after 15 years 8 months, from the date of death of the deceased employee, his case was rejected. He lastly submits that, since the petitioner has survived more than 15 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, no compassion is left in this case. 6. From perusal of the record, I find that the father of this petitioner died on 26.07.1996. The application made by his brother i.e. Joseph Purti was dismissed on the ground of limitation, which was not challenged. C.C.L came up with a circular dated 21.01.2012, by which, the cases which were rejected on the ground of delay beyond six months from the date of death of the employee was to be reopened, however, the delay should not be beyond one and a half years from the date of death of the employee. The petitioner, taking shelter of the said circular, had applied afresh for grant of compassionate appointment, sometime in the year, 2012. His application was rejected by the impugned order. The circular which the petitioner is relying upon provides for reopening/reconsideration of those cases of compassionate appointment which were rejected on the ground of delay beyond six months. It is admitted case that the case of this petitioner was not rejected on the ground of limitation rather it was the application made on behalf of the Joseph Purti which was rejected. If, any rejection order had to be reviewed, reopened or reconsidered by virtue of the Circular dated 21.01.2012, it is the rejection of order of Joseph Purti only. It is also admitted that the petitioner has filed a fresh application for grant of compassionate appointment for himself. If, any rejection order had to be reviewed, reopened or reconsidered by virtue of the Circular dated 21.01.2012, it is the rejection of order of Joseph Purti only. It is also admitted that the petitioner has filed a fresh application for grant of compassionate appointment for himself. Thus, this application is a new/fresh application, consideration of which is not governed by the Circular dated 22.01.2012. The management has correctly treated this application to be a fresh application seeking compassionate appointment on the ground of death of the ex-employee who died on 26.07.1996. This fresh application by the petitioner was filed after 15 years from the date of death of the employee. Moreover, the petitioner has survived this long 15 years. 7. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object of these types of appointment is not to give a member of such family a post. Compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 in paragraphs 12 and 13, that: “12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service. 13. In the present case, the father of the appellant became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family could survive and successfully faced and overcame the financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member. That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.” 8. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.” 8. A compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is not a vested right. 9. In the instant case, it is admitted that this petitioner has not applied on earlier occasion and only after 15 years from the date of death of the deceased, he had applied for grant of compassionate appointment. The cause of action for filing the application by the petitioner has to be related to the date of the death of the father (employee) and not with the disappearance of his brother (who was not an employee). 10. The family could survive and successfully faced and overcame the financial and other difficulties that they faced on death of the earning member. Thus, it is clear that since the family, survived for long 15 years, there is no need of compassionate appointment in this case. 11. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, as the same do not suffer from any legality. 12. This application is dismissed.