Order : Heard Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. K. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment. 3. From the facts appearing from the writ petition, it appears that the mother of the petitioner had died on 03.08.1999 while working under the respondent M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL). At the time of death of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged about 15 years 04 months and in consonance with the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), the petitioner had made an application that he shall fill-up the necessary forms in the year 2002 after attaining the age of majority. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted the requisite form before the authorities which was also duly forwarded by the Unit Office, Sarubera Colliery, Kuju to the Kuju Area Office, but since then in spite of repeated assurance no decision has been taken. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of death of his mother, the petitioner was minor and the respondents should have kept his case in a live roster, till he attained majority and after that his case for compassionate appointment should have been considered. The petitioner had represented before the authorities on several occasions, but till date no positive response is forthcoming from the respondent authorities. 6. Mr. D.K. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner is itself a belated claim as although the mother of the petitioner died in the year 1999, but the present application has been filed in the year 2015 and there is no explanation from the side of the petitioner in response to such delay. Such belated claim cannot be entertained as the same would frustrate the basic tenets of the scheme for compassionate appointment. 7. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that there has been a considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in raising his grievance for non-grant of compassionate appointment. Such belated claim cannot be entertained as the same would frustrate the basic tenets of the scheme for compassionate appointment. 7. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that there has been a considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in raising his grievance for non-grant of compassionate appointment. Even from the document which has been appended in the writ petition, it appears that some representation was submitted in the year 1999 without there being any token of acceptance on the part of the respondent authorities. After 1999, the representation which was submitted is of the year 2014 and there is absolutely no whisper or any document which has been produced by the petitioner to suggest that he was pursuing his case in the meantime. Even otherwise, such belated claim frustrates the very object for granting compassionate appointment, which is provided as a measure of immediate relief to the dependent of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis which has occurred on account of such death. 8. In such circumstances, the petitioner having failed to make out a case so as to consider his claim for compassionate appointment and there being abundant delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this application and the same is accordingly dismissed.