JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider for appointment of the petitioner who is unmarried daughter on compensationate ground, whose father was working as U.G. Loador in Badjna colliery, Nirsa Dhanbad who died on 28.09.2003 in harness as a result of Cardiac respiratory failure. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application in a nutshell is that father of the petitioner namely Arjun Bhuia was working as U.G. Loader in Badjna Colliery Nirsa, Dhanbad in Eastern Coal Fields Limited a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. The father of the petitioner died on 28.09.2003 as per the certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Nirsa, Dhanbad. The list of the family members as has been obtained in which it is evident that the petitioner is a daughter of late Arjun Bhuia. The petitioner duly filed Indemnity Bond sworn before the notary Public on 24.06.2005 for getting an employment in place of her deceased father and for payment of gratuity, life cover scheme amounts lying deposited in the credit of her father. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents in not giving employment to the petitioner on compensationate ground, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compensationate ground after the death of her father amounts to high-handedness and colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents ought to have adhered to the policy of the respondent company for giving the benefit of compensationate appointment in case of death in harness in right prospective. In the case in hand, the respondents have shown utter callousness and indifference in mitigating the grievance of the petitioner. 4. Repudiating the contentions made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that Late Arjun Bhuiya was appointed as underground Loader on 04.07.1995 at Badjna Colliery. Subsequently, he remained absent unauthorizedly from 08.08.2003 to 08.02.2004 and as such charge sheet was issued for unauthorized absentism under the relevance of the Certified Standing Order. Subsequently, he remained absent unauthorizedly from 08.08.2003 to 08.02.2004 and as such charge sheet was issued for unauthorized absentism under the relevance of the Certified Standing Order. Further, it has been submitted that late Arjun Bhuiya neither submitted reply to the charge sheet nor attended the inquiry proceeding inspite of issuance of charge sheet in his name and address through postal dak. The charge sheet levelled against him was established so he was dismissed from services on 20.05.2004 by termination letter dated 20.05.2004. So far, death of late Arjun Bhuiya was concerned and the same was not intimated by any person or relative. Hence, his gratuity amount has been deposited to the Controlling Authority and ultimately, the Controlling Authority has passed the order on 29.04.2009 for payment of gratuity in which the gratuity payment was made to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that in service book of late Arjun Bhuiya, the name of family members as father, mother and brother were mentioned and Form-F was not submitted by him and the petitioner’s name was not appearing in the official record so her claim for employment was not considered. 5. During pendency of the writ application, a supplementary affidavit dated 24.01.2018 has been filed wherein the application dated 08.10.2003 for compassionate appointment has been annexed. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the newly added respondent no.6 on 14.11.2017 wherein the respondent no.6, son of the deceased has no objection in grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner for which, the respondent no.6 has sworn an affidavit on 16.08.2017 and furnished undertaking/Indemnification Bond vide Annexure-1 and 1/1 of the supplementary affidavit. 7. Supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 dated 14.03.2018 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that application dated 08.10.2003 does not bear any receiving evidence by way of signature, receiving number with stamp of concerned colliery. Thus, the document in question is fake/forged/created/fabricated by the petitioner to establish her case as evident from Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.01.2018 filed by the petitioner. It has further been submitted that initially Rajesh Bhuiya, the respondent no.6 claimed compassionate employment through Indemnity Bond Affidavit dated 24.06.2005 and the petitioner through Indemnity Bond Affidavit dated 24.06.2005 claimed gratuity and life cover scheme etc. of the deceased employee-Arjun Bhuiya. It has further been submitted that initially Rajesh Bhuiya, the respondent no.6 claimed compassionate employment through Indemnity Bond Affidavit dated 24.06.2005 and the petitioner through Indemnity Bond Affidavit dated 24.06.2005 claimed gratuity and life cover scheme etc. of the deceased employee-Arjun Bhuiya. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the ECL Authority and belatedly requested for her employment on compassionate ground on 29.11.2006, i.e., after a period of 3 years and 2 months (Approximately). Thus, there was apparent family dispute in between the brother and sister in respect of respective claim for compassionate appointment as per Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that initially Rajesh Bhuiya by filing Indemnity Bond Affidavit dated 24.06.2005 claimed compassionate appointment. Further, the petitioner by filing another Indemnity Bond Affidavit dated 24.06.2005 claimed gratuity, life cover scheme amount etc. and also the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 01.07.2005 and claimed life cover scheme amount etc. It has further been submitted that one lady named Mala Devi appeared before the authority and claimed herself to be widow of Arjun Bhuiya and she also filed application dated 10.03.2006 and claimed gratuity, life cover scheme amount etc. The application dated 10.03.2006 of Mala Devi was responded by agent, Badjna Colliery by letter dated 28.04.2006 wherein it was communicated to Mala Devi that as Arjun Bhuiya, EX-UG Loader has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 20.05.2004 and the intimation of death and death certificate has been received much latter, his dues have been deposited in the Labour Court as per Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 11.01.2007 before the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad) for determination of gratuity and for its payment. The petitioner stated that her mother died 14 years back. The gratuity payment has been allowed vide order dated 21.04.2009 as per Annexures-G & H to the supplementary counter-affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit, submitted that after lapse of long period, the very purpose of providing compassionate employment to the petitioner has been frustrated. It is not a vested right to claim compassionate appointment any time during her life time. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit, submitted that after lapse of long period, the very purpose of providing compassionate employment to the petitioner has been frustrated. It is not a vested right to claim compassionate appointment any time during her life time. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the documents on records pleaded it is apparent from the face of the record that the petitioner’s application was made beyond the time limit after the death of her father i.e. 28.09.2003 but the records reveal that initially, the respondent no.6 sought for compassionate appointment thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application after more than 3 years from the death of her father for employment on compassionate ground i.e. on 29.11.2006. Therefore, there has been undue delay on part of the petitioner to stake her claim for compassionate appointment. The very purpose behind grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over from immediate distress condition. The compassionate appointment is not a vested right nor it is a regular mode of appointment as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 in paragraph 12, which is quoted hereinbelow:- “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.” 10. In the meantime, more than 15 years have elapsed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner and the members of deceased family have received the gratuity amount and survived and overcome the financial crisis on the death of father of the petitioner. 11. In the meantime, more than 15 years have elapsed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner and the members of deceased family have received the gratuity amount and survived and overcome the financial crisis on the death of father of the petitioner. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court would be loath to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for direction to the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.