JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. In this writ application, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.03.2015 contained in Memo No. 198/Astha, Sahibganj, by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Further the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.09.1988 so far it relates to the petitioner, by which she was given compassionate appointment and was posted in District Rural Development Authorities (hereinafter referred to as 'D.R.D.A.'), Sahibganj. Her further prayer is to transfer her service in the Government Department on the ground that her father was a regular employee under the Government. 2. Father of the petitioner was employed by the State of Bihar and was deputed in D.R.D.A. Sahibganj in the post of A.P.O., Agriculture. While in service he died in harness on 17.12.1985, as a result of which this petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The case of the petitioner was considered and by order dated 01.09.1988 contained in Memo No. 476, this petitioner was recommended to be appointed on compassionate ground in the post of typist-cum-clerk in D.R.D.A. Sahibganj. She joined in the said post. The petitioner later on filed a representation before the authority concerned, praying therein to transfer her service from D.R.D.A. to any Department under the State at the district level on the ground that her father was in regular service under the State Government ,thus, the petitioner could not have been appointed in D.R.D.A. The said representation was considered and dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.03.2015. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per resolution No.3/R 1-304 KA 12754 dated 12.7.1977 the petitioner could not have been appointed in D.R.D.A. after recommendation made by the Establishment Committee. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the father of the petitioner was in regular service of the State Government, she could not have been recommended for appointment in D.R.D.A. as the service in D.R.D.A. is not under the Government. He further submits that raising grievances, the petitioner had filed a representation before the concerned authority, which was not considered in proper perspective, but was rejected mechanically vide order dated 16.05.2012 contained in Memo No. 217, holding that as per Clause 9(k) of resolution dated 05.10.1991, once an appointment has been made on compassionate ground no further benefit can be granted on the same ground in respect of either promotion or for change of any cadre. Counsel for the petitioner further argues that Circular dated 05.10.1991 is not applicable so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned as it cannot be applicable with retrospective effect, which is apparent from Clause 10 of the said Circular. The petitioner submits that she is not wanting to change her cadre or is not taking any benefits for the second time on the ground of death of her father. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon two judgments passed in W.P.(S) No. 7519 of 2012, Pramod Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & others, reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 411 (Jhr.) and in L.P.A. No. 334 of 2011, Anil Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & others, reported in 2012 (1) JLJR 237 (Jhr.) and submits that her case is cover by these two judgments pronounced by this Court and, as such, the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is illegal and bad. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the letter of appointment it was mentioned that the petitioner has to sign an agreement for a period of three years, which means that the service of the petitioner in D.R.D.A. is only for three years, which is also illegal. 4. Counsel for the State submits that after proper scrutiny, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Establishment Committee and on the basis of the said recommendation made by the Committee, the petitioner was given employment in D.R.D.A. Sahibganj. Further it has been argued that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Circular dated 05.10.1991 as because the petitioner is trying to change her cadre and place of posting, which cannot be done at this stage. It has further been argued that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 and she has approached this Court in the year 2015 i.e. after serving for more than 26 years in D.R.D.A., thus, the grievance raised cannot be entertained now. 5. It is admitted that the father of the petitioner died on 17.12.1985 and after considering the case of the petitioner, the Establishment Committee has recommended for her appointment on compassionate ground. She was appointed in D.R.D.A. The petitioner joined and worked for 26 years. On query it has been submitted that the Agreement as directed be signed by the petitioner was not signed by her. She was appointed in D.R.D.A. The petitioner joined and worked for 26 years. On query it has been submitted that the Agreement as directed be signed by the petitioner was not signed by her. The petitioner after working for more than 26 years in D.R.D.A. has raised the dispute that she could not have been appointed in D.R.D.A. by the Establishment Committee and the petitioner should have been appointed in any of the Department of the Government. 6. From the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner has filed series of representations for considering her case. From perusal of the representation, which has been brought on record, it is apparent that the earliest representation is dated 23.02.2011, which is, in fact, filed after more than 18 years from the date of getting appointment in D.R.D.A. on compassionate ground. Further, Clause 9 (K) of the circular dated 05.10.1991 clearly states that a person who has got the benefit of compassionate appointment, on the same ground cannot be promoted nor can cadre be changed. Further Clause 10 of the said Circular mentions that in case of death, which has occurred prior to coming into force of the Circular their cases will not be reopened by virtue of the circular. 7. In my opinion, the case of the petitioner is covered by Clause 9(K) of Circular dated 05.10.1991. The petitioner wants to change her service from D.R.D.A. to the Government Department. Since vide Circular dated 05.10.1991 it has been clearly observed that neither promotion can be granted nor cadre can be changed, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said Clause. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case of the petitioner on the ground that the fact and circumstances of those case are absolutely different. 8. Further more after serving from the year 1988 in D.R.D.A., the petitioner suddenly started to ventilate her grievances from the year 2011. If the petitioner was at all aggrieved, she should have raised her grievance immediately and should have approached this Court soon after appointment and not after 26 years. There is inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court for redressal of her grievance. 9. In view of the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner no relief can be granted to her. There is inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court for redressal of her grievance. 9. In view of the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner no relief can be granted to her. Hence, this writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed.