JUDGMENT : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The prayer in the present writ petition is to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class IV employee on compassionate ground. 2. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Late Kishan Lal died on 30.07.2006 while working on the post of Driver with the respondent department. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and her application was rejected by the respondents vide Order dated 29.10.2007, whereas, the present petition has been filed now in the year 2017 i.e. after almost 10 years. Although, no explanation for the delay is forthcoming but it is stated that the petitioner had moved consecutive applications before the respondents for according her compassionate appointment and her application was rejected for second time on 02.11.2010 on the ground that the petitioner is only Class V passed and as per the Regulations of 2010, there is provision for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, Computer, Sub-Store Inspector, Driver, Conductor, Artisan Grade-III and Lower Division Clerk but the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification for the aforesaid post. Instead of coming to this Court, the petitioner continued to approach the authorities by way of submitting various representations and her last representation to appoint her on the post of Class IV employee was rejected on 28.11.2016 on the ground that her application was beyond limitation and that her application had already been rejected earlier on the ground that she did not have requisite qualification. 3. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 refused to interfere in the matter after lapse of reasonable time on the ground that the compassionate employment is granted only on account of the economic difficulties faced by a person on the death of the deceased and the petitioner having successfully faced over the financial difficulties for the period he did not approach this Court, no relief could be granted and held in Para 6 as under:— “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 4. The observation of the Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. reported in JT 2009 (8) SC 135 is relevant:— “8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rule would make it crystal clear that there is a time limit prescribed according to which a deserving candidate has to make an application for appointment within five years from the date of death of the government servant. Admittedly, the father of the appellant was untraceable from 1981. Without entering into and deciding the issue as to whether employment on compassionate ground could be asked for in a case of deemed death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it can be so demanded and asked for, such a right should and could have been exercised in the year 1988 and computing the period of five years therefrom the period of limitation for making an application for employment in the case of the appellant expired in the year, 1993. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that is faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.” 5. So far as making repeated representations is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1989) 4 SCC 582 observed that “submission of just a memorial or representation to the head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation”. 6. This view has been subsequently followed in various judgments of the Apex Court as also in the case of Union of India v. Har Dayal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 394, wherein it was held that:— “The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have totally ignored the enormous delay of more than 30 years on the part of the respondent in approaching the Court. This Court has repeatedly held that merely giving representation will neither extend the limitation nor wipe out the delay and laches.” 7. Thus, it is well settled that repeated representations do not condone the delay and laches and the representation is not an adequate explanation to take care of the delay. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief and if there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the Court may decline to intervene while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Petition dismissed.