JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The order dated 11th of May, 2010 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14327 of 2006 is subject matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned Single Bench found that the writ application filed by the appellant challenging the order of the District Compassionate Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") dated 20th of December, 2000 in the year 2006 suffers from gross delay and laches. It was also found that there can be no occasion to grant compassionate appointment at this belated stage. 4. Father of the appellant died on 10th of November, 1992. The appellant attained majority on 27th of December, 1995. He sought appointment on compassionate grounds on 14th of January, 1997 but his claim was rejected by the Committee on 20th of December, 2000. 5. Learned Single Bench observed that the decision of the Committee is not based upon correct reasoning as a minor can apply for compassionate appointment within five years. Therefore, his case cannot be rejected on that ground. 6. Having said so, the learned Single Bench found that the appellant has filed writ application on 23rd of November, 2006 i.e. almost six years later after rejection of his claim by the Committee, therefore, the petition cannot be entertained in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of death of an employee who died in the year 1992. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal. 8. The appointment on compassionate grounds is granted to meet immediate financial hardship. The financial hardship accrued to the appellant in the year 1992 when the appellant lost his father. However, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was made after attaining majority on 14th of January, 1997. Though the learned Single Bench has observed that a minor could apply within five years after attaining majority but there is no reference to any circular permitting such right nor it has been brought to our notice. Even otherwise, we find that the delay in filing of the writ application after the decision of the Committee is a good ground for declining the claim of the appellant as appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sought after gross delay. Even otherwise, we find that the delay in filing of the writ application after the decision of the Committee is a good ground for declining the claim of the appellant as appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sought after gross delay. Reference will be made to Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam, (2011) 13 SCC 42 , wherein the Supreme Court held that an appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependants and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. The Court held as follows:- "11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependants is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependants and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies, etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies, etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time-limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. 13. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on 2.7.1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father's death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service." 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal, which is dismissed.