JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Petitioner's father is stated to have died in harness on 5.6.2000. Petitioner at that stage was a minor. Petitioner's mother continued to receive family pension till 2007, whereafter she is reported to have gone untraceable. Petitioner has subsequently moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment, and also for payment of family pension being a dependent. Since such claim has not been considered, as such, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, his filing of an application for grant of compassionate appointment, upon attaining the age of majority, is liable to be considered. Submission is that petitioner is otherwise a dependent, and in terms of the applicable rules, his claim for payment of family pension is also liable to be considered. 3. Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 192 , in order to contend that a belated application filed for compassionate appointment on the ground that the applicant was a minor, and such application has been filed after he attains majority, is no ground to condone the delay. Reliance has also been placed upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014 (3) AWC 3006 , in which the principles have been laid, and attention of the Court has been invited to paragraph-29(viii) of the judgment, which reads as under: - "29(viii). Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family." 4. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family." 4. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that the object of grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden difficulty caused for the family of the employee, who was the sole bread earner. There is no vested right to seek compassionate appointment, and such an application, in the facts and circumstances, is not liable to be entertained, after lapse of nearly 16 years, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra). However, petitioner's claim for payment of family pension being a dependent is required to be considered by the respondent Bank, in accordance with the Rules, by way of a reasoned speaking order. 5. This writ petition, consequently, stands disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to examine the claim of petitioner for grant of family pension as well as arrears payable to the petitioner's mother, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken accordingly.