ORDER : In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment in place of her deceased mother Putna Kamin. Further prayer has been made to quash the communication dated 03.05.2013, by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Mother of the petitioner, namely, Putna Kamin was an employee of the respondents M/s B.C.C.L. She died in harness on 27.08.1998. It is alleged that the petitioner was the only legal heir of the deceased. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.01.1999. No action was taken on the said application because the same was not in proper format. The petitioner again applied in the proper format. The petitioner claims that she was called before Screening Committee and the Medical Board, where she appeared. The Medical Board examined the petitioner and gave his report in the month of January 2006. The petitioner claims that thereafter the petitioner was not given employment; rather vide letter dated 03.05.2013 she was informed that since her application was filed 18 months after the death of the employee, her claim cannot be considered. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order could not have been passed, in view of the relevant facts. He submits that the petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased and was dependant upon her deceased mother. He submits that since it is admitted that the deceased died in harness, as per the Scheme of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Coal Company M/s B.C.C.L. submits that no employment can be granted to the petitioner as there is nothing on record to show that this petitioner was dependent on the deceased. Further he submits that admittedly death occurred on 27.08.1998 and the writ petition was filed in the month of August 2016 claiming for compassionate appointment i.e. after long lapse of 18 years, hence, no compassionate appointment can be granted. 5. I have gone through the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is admitted fact that the mother of the petitioner died on 27.08.1998. The case of the petitioner was considered and ultimately it was rejected on 03.05.2013. 5. I have gone through the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is admitted fact that the mother of the petitioner died on 27.08.1998. The case of the petitioner was considered and ultimately it was rejected on 03.05.2013. The petitioner has filed this writ application in August, 2016, i.e. nearly 3 years after the rejection. Undoubtedly the petitioner has survived this long 18 years. It is well settled that delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment. For long 18 years, this petitioner has survived which clearly suggests that she has over come the immediate financial hardship, which she faced at the time of death of her mother in the month of August 1998. Once the period of hardship is tied over, there remains no justification to provide compassionate appointment. 7. Further from perusal of the pleadings made in the petition it is evident that the petitioner has claimed herself to be the legal heir and successor of Putna Kamin. Nowhere it has been averred that she was dependent upon her deceased mother at the time of her death. To become eligible for employment in the Coal Company on compassionate ground, not only one has to be the heir, but should also be dependent upon the deceased. This averment of dependency is lacking in the entire petition. 8. Thus in the cumulative effect what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed.