ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, C.C.L and C.M.P.F 2. Widow-petitioner has sought compassionate appointment upon quashing of the order of rejection at Annexure-2 dated 22nd May, 2001. She has also sought release of C.M.P.F amount, gratuity and other benefits. 3. As per pleadings on record and categorical statements made by the respondent-employer in its counter affidavit, husband of the petitioner was absenting from duty unauthorizedly from 14th September, 1995 and was charge-sheeted on 1st February, 1996, in which an enquiry was constituted vide Memo dated 19th July, 1996 (Annexure-B Series). Departmental inquiry proceeded ex parte in which charges were proved against him but could not reach to its logical end as the employee reportedly died on 18th October, 1997. This fact was informed by the petitioner to the management on 19th December, 1998, whereafter his name was struck off on 2nd February, 1999. While the petitioner contends at paragraph 9 that application for compassionate appointment was made within six months and thereafter necessary certificates were asked for and submitted by her, but no such application is enclosed to the writ petition. This contention has been specifically denied by the respondent-CCL at para 17 of their counter affidavit. 4. According to the respondent, application was made after expiry of 2 years 1 month and 12 days on the last day of November, 1999, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-5 series. Petitioner submitted a family certificate dated 25th May, 1999 issued by Block Development Officer, Budmu. At the relevant point of time, application was to be made within a period of six months from the date of death as per circular dated 12th December, 1995. This was revised by circular dated 1st January, 2002 upto the period of one year with effect from February, 2000 (Annexure-H & I respectively). Subsequent circular extending time upto one and half year however, would also be of no avail to the petitioner. In these circumstances, by a cryptic order, petitioner was communicated on 22nd May, 2001 that her application cannot be considered at that stage. 5. Challenge thereto has been made in the present writ application filed in 2009 after delay of eight years, for which no explanation has been furnished. In these circumstances, by a cryptic order, petitioner was communicated on 22nd May, 2001 that her application cannot be considered at that stage. 5. Challenge thereto has been made in the present writ application filed in 2009 after delay of eight years, for which no explanation has been furnished. So far as pension claims are concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-CMPF submits on the basis of affidavit filed on 2nd November, 2012 that such claim application has not been received from the management till that date. Claim of CMPF has already been settled and Rs. 61,992.00 has been paid vide order dated 30th July, 2010 in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of rejection is vague and cryptic. Application for compassionate appointment was made within six months period and only upon being asked to furnish further certificate in support thereto, the same was supplied later on in 1999. Therefore, claim has been rejected on arbitrary and illegal grounds. 7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts pleaded and taken note above. As noticed hereinabove, statement of having made application within six months from the date of death is not supported by any document. On the contrary, respondents have enclosed application at Annexure-F Series with family certificate dated 25th May, 1999 categorically stating that the same were made after expiry of 2 years 1 month and 12 days on the last day of November, 1999. In the absence of any documentary proof that the application was made by the petitioner within time period of 6 months prescribed, the application if any made thereafter was definitely barred by delay. This is the main reason for rejection of the claim as communicated through the impugned order. The writ application has been filed in 2009 after 8 years without any explanation for such long delay. Compassionate appointment are given to provide succor to the dependents of the deceased, immediately after the death of the bread earner so that they are not reduced to penury. If the family has survived for such long, claim itself became stale. As such, no relief can be granted on this prayer. 8. So far the claim for CMPF is concerned, the same has been redressed by the concerned respondent. If the family has survived for such long, claim itself became stale. As such, no relief can be granted on this prayer. 8. So far the claim for CMPF is concerned, the same has been redressed by the concerned respondent. In case, the deceased was a member of Pension Scheme of 1971, the management would examine the claim and forward it to the CMPF authority for processing the same in accordance with law. It has been informed that the claim of gratuity has not yet been settled by the employer –CCL. The respondent CCL would examine it in accordance with law and pay any admissible dues on that head within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of.