ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4948 of 2015 dated 28th March, 2016. This appeal has been preferred by original petitioner, as the petition of this appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, compassionate appointment to the original petitioner has been denied. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that father of this appellant (original petitioner) expired on 7th March, 2009 during the course of his employment with the respondents. This appellant is the daughter of the deceased-employee. 3. It appears that earlier the petitioner had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.977 of 2011 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.07.2011 as withdrawn. Thereafter, the widow of the deceased-employee had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.294 of 2013. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the said writ petition was also withdrawn. This submission is factually a wrong submission. In fact, the said writ petition has not been disposed as withdrawn, rather, it has been dismissed vide order dated 24th June, 2015 with reasons. Counsel for the appellant should make factually correct submissions while arguing before the Court. 4. Thus, in the aforesaid second attempt also, the prayer for compassionate appointment was not granted. Now, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred again the writ petition for compassionate appointment being W.P.(S) No.4948 of 2015. 5. It appears that much time has been lapsed after the death of her father. The very purpose of compassionate appointment has been failed. It ought to be kept in mind that compassionate appointment cannot be given at any time. If the person, who is seeking compassionate appointment, is waiting unnecessarily for a much longer time, then he/she cannot be given compassionate appointment. In fact, compassionate appointment is not a rule at all, but, such type of appointment is exception to Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This type of compassionate appointment is being given only to support the family of the deceased-employee. Here, the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2015 and the date of death of the father of the original petitioner is 7th March, 2009. Thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated. 6. This type of compassionate appointment is being given only to support the family of the deceased-employee. Here, the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2015 and the date of death of the father of the original petitioner is 7th March, 2009. Thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated. 6. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court; in the case of State of U.P. V. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC page-412, at paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6, as under:- “4. Seventeen years after the death of his father, the respondent, on 8.1.1986, made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court and an appeal from the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State has filed the present appeal. 5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case. 6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed: “The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC page-192, at paragraph nos. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC page-192, at paragraph nos. 2 and 3, as under:- “2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar. Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21-4-1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts. 3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., as reported in (2009)6 SCC page-481, especially at paragraph nos.11 and 12, as under:- “11. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., as reported in (2009)6 SCC page-481, especially at paragraph nos.11 and 12, as under:- “11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are 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 constrains. 12. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar & ors., as reported in A.I.R. 2009 SC page-2534, especially at paragraph no.19, as under: - “19. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personnel Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The request so made was accepted by the Personnel Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P), who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the aforesaid decisions and also looking to the fact that earlier writ petitions have been dismissed by this Court, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4948 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 28th March, 2016 and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. 11. This Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed.