JUDGMENT : Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. The prayer in the present petition is to grant appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father Shri Nathi Singh who died while in service. 2. The facts in short are that the father of the petitioner died way back in the year 2003. The wife of the deceased Nathi Singh and the mother of the present petitioner sought appointment. However, same was rejected on the ground that she is only 5th class pass and no post equivalent to her qualification is available in the department. The said order was passed on 5.9.2005. On receiving the aforesaid letter, the mother of the petitioner Gaytri Devi submitted an affidavit dated 17.10.2005 whereby she requested that the appointment on compassionate ground be given to her son Pushpendra Singh as and when he turned major. On attaining the age of majority, the mother of the petitioner served a legal notice. Vide communication dated 29.01.2009, the respondent-Corporation informed the petitioner that his father had died way back on 14.12.2003 whereas the application for appointment by the petitioner was moved as late as on 2.6.2008 and since there is no provision to keep the matter pending till the dependents attains the age of majority, no relief can be granted to him. 3. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the application moved by the mother of the petitioner was rejected way back on 5.9.2005. The same has not been challenged till date and therefore, the said claim deserves to be rejected on account of delay and laches. The present petitioner who is the son too cannot be granted appointment as there is no provision to keep the matter pending or carry over and wait till the dependent attains the age of majority. 4. No doubt, the case of the petitioner is a hard case. However, the issued already settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 565/2009 decided on 7.10.2010 which is with respect to the same rules and regulations as applicable to the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is also seeking compassionate appointment in the same department i.e. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner is also seeking compassionate appointment in the same department i.e. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. In the said case, the petitioner had sought appointment on compassionate ground after a lapse of number of years on the ground that the appellant was minor at the time of his father’s death and at that point of time, he was ineligible to make application for compassionate appointment. Therefore, his application seeking appointment after he attained the age of majority should be accepted and he should be granted the appointment. The said appeal was dismissed holding in no uncertain terms as under:- “In other words, whether appellant was ineligible to apply due to his minority or otherwise, the fact that the application was made after 13 years from the date of death, could not be disputed. The delay regardless of cause was, therefore, one of the factor which could be made basis for its rejection in the absence of any Rule or Circular providing contrary for entertaining application at the instance of such candidates. No such Rule was pointed out.” 5. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in 1994 SCC (4) 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. 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.” 6. The observation of the Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in JT 2009 (8) SC 135 is relevant :- “8. The observation of the Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors. 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 there from 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. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.” 7. Similarly in the present case, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2003 and the application for appointment was moved by the present petitioner in 2009. At the same time, although the mother of the petitioner had moved application in the year 2005 itself but her application was rejected in the same year. However, she has never challenged the order of rejection till date. 8. At the same time, although the mother of the petitioner had moved application in the year 2005 itself but her application was rejected in the same year. However, she has never challenged the order of rejection till date. 8. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and taking into account the unexplained delay in filing the writ petition, the same is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.