JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. Re. : Interlocutory Application No. 2304 of 2015 The application is for condonation of delay of 255 days in filing of the present appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find that sufficient cause is shown by the appellant to condone such delay. Consequently, the delay in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 3. Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly. Re. : Letters Patent Appeal No. 518 of 2015 The order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8305 of 2013 is subject matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal. By the aforesaid order, the claim of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground remained unsuccessful. 4. The father of the appellant died in harness on 1st December, 1985. The mother of the appellant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 07.06.1990, but sought appointment of his son, the present appellant, who was said to be five years at that time. It appears that later, another request was made. The request of the appellant for appointment was rejected on the ground that the application has been submitted after 14 years of death and it is barred by time. 5. Learned counsel for the State has referred to instructions No. 3/C-1-2030/80 Ka.-6817, dated 25th May, 1989, contemplating time period during which the application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground can be filed. Initially, the period to seek appointment was two years, but it was amended to permit an application for appointment on compassionate ground to be made within five years of the death of the employee. 6. The mother of appellant though applied for appointment within five years, but the fact remains that the application for appointment was not for herself, but for her minor son, i.e. the present appellant, who was five years of age at that time. Such application could not be entertained for the reason that there is no such provision to entertain the claim of the minor. Reference will be made to Local Admn. Deptt. Such application could not be entertained for the reason that there is no such provision to entertain the claim of the minor. Reference will be made to Local Admn. Deptt. v. 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. 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. 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 subserve 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". 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.