JUDGMENT : Sambuddha Chakarabarti, J. Let the affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner in Court today be kept with the record. 2. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners was an employee of the United Bank of India. He died in harness in the year 2000. There was an application for compassionate appointment, which was turned down by the respondent authorities by a communication, dated June 17, 2004. Subsequently, there were intermittent representations and the respondents have also rejected the same with reference to the communication made earlier. The petitioners have challenged the said order of 2004 in a writ petition filed thirteen years after the orders were passed. 3. The petitioners claim was for compassionate appointment. It has been a settled principles of law that such appointments must be reckoned to be outside of the regular course of appointment. The employer does not get candidate of the best merit of such cases. In spite of it, employers make provision for appointment on compassionate ground to help a family tide over the immediate financial crisis arising out of the sudden death of a sole bread earner. Thus, time is a factor in the matter of making such appointments. If by the lapse of considerable time the immediacy is lost, an applicant for compassionate appointment loses his right to ask for the same. In the case of Sajjad Ahmed Mir v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2743 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when a considerable time, 10 years in that case, lapsed between the death of the employee and the consideration of the case, the compassionate appointment may not be considered. In the present case more than 17 years have elapsed from the death of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. 4. There is yet another reason why this writ petition should not be entertained. The petitioners have challenged virtually an order dated June 17, 2004, 13 years later. Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the last of such rejection was in the year 2014. Even a bare perusal of that communication shows that it was subsequent representation of the petitioner, which was rejected with reference to the order passed on June 17, 2014 that the real ground had been communicated to the applicant by that order. Even a bare perusal of that communication shows that it was subsequent representation of the petitioner, which was rejected with reference to the order passed on June 17, 2014 that the real ground had been communicated to the applicant by that order. When an authority passes a substantive order and communicated to the applicant, disposal of subsequent representations with reference to the main order does not give a fresh cause of action to challenge the same. If that had not been the case it will be an on-going process conferring intermittent cause of action to the petitioners to challenge an order passed in a very distant past. 5. Even if for filing a writ petition, there is no period of limitation, the Court always insists on a diligent act on the part of the vigilant litigant. When the petitioners complain that because of the rejection of their case 13 years ago, they are facing financial crisis, it was only expected of them to approach this Court at a much earlier date. Intermittent representations do not extend period of limitation, though in the present case there is no fixed period of limitation but a legal requirement to challenge the order impugned within a proximate period. There is no explanation for the same and the writ petition, therefore, on the ground of delay also cannot be entertained. 6. Thus I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.