JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Satta, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rindani, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "18(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in nature of Mandamus for directing the Respondents to immediately give job to the Petitioner on compassionate ground since her elder brother expired without having been appointed in place of his late father." 3. The petitioner seeks direction against respondent Nos.2 to 4 to grant appointment on compassionate ground. She has raised the claim on the ground that she is married daughter of an employee of respondent electricity company who died, while in service, in February 1997. 3.1 The respondent board has not accepted petitioner's demand, inter alia, on the ground that married daughter is not considered dependent of the employee and that therefore, she is not eligible and entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under GSO-295. 3.2 The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said decision and reply of the respondent board. Hence, this petition. 4. The facts involved in present case would demonstrate that the demand raised by the petitioner as well as the petition are not maintainable and do not deserve to be entertained for more than one reasons, the foremost being gross delay. 4.1 A short narration of factual backdrop would demonstrate and justify that the petition and the claim raised thereby are meritless as well as unjustified. 4.2 One Mr. R.M.Parmar was working as C-Sr. Khalasi in Turbine Section with the respondent board. 4.3 He died, while in service, on 9.2.1997. 4.4 The said employee (since deceased) was survived by Smt. Dahiben (widow), Mr. Vijaybhai (son), Ms. Ramilaben (daughter), Ms. Kokilaben (daughter) and Ms. Meenaben (daughter). 4.5 At the time of sad demise of said Mr. Parmar, his son (Mr. Vijaybhai) was, according to the averments in the petition, 17 years old whereas present petitioner, at the relevant time, was 16 years old. 4.6 Somewhere in March 1999, said Mr. Vijay submitted an application to the respondent board and asked for appointment on compassionate ground. 4.7 It is averred that the respondent board, vide its communication dated 3.6.1999, informed said applicant (Mr. 4.6 Somewhere in March 1999, said Mr. Vijay submitted an application to the respondent board and asked for appointment on compassionate ground. 4.7 It is averred that the respondent board, vide its communication dated 3.6.1999, informed said applicant (Mr. Vijay) that his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground is approved in principal, however, his name is maintained on waiting list because the persons whose applications have been approved earlier will have to be accommodated before he could be actually appointed (depending on availability of vacancy). 4.8 Sometime after the board addressed the said letter dated 3.6.1999, said Mr. Vijay, while he was awaiting actual appointment, asked for payment of Rs. 500/- as maintenance compensation. 4.9 It is claimed that the applicable GSO makes provision for such payment. 4.10 It is claimed that while said Mr. Vijay awaited the appointment order, he died in June 2006 (11.6.2006). 4.11 For almost 1 year after death of said Mr. Vijay any member of the family of the deceased employee did not take any step and suddenly after passage of almost 1 year, widow of deceased, (i.e. mother of said Mr. Vijay) and present petitioner, submitted an application (in June 2007) that instead of Mr. Vijay (who died in June 2006) one of the daughters of the deceased employee (i.e. present petitioner) should be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, vide letter dated 12.7.2007, present petitioner's mother submitted request (not formal application) to consider case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 4.12 It is pertinent to note that by this time, almost 10 years had passed since sad demise of the employee. 4.13 Further, the daughter (for whom the mother submitted the request) had already got married and had her own family (at her matrimonial house). 4.14 In the said communication dated 12.7.2007, any details with regard to educational qualification, etc. of present petitioner were not mentioned. Such details are not mentioned in present petition as well. Of course, the letter mentioned that the document/certificates are annexed to the letter, however, any document/certificates are not placed on record of present petition. 4.15 Be that as it may, the fact relevant for present petition is that upon sad demise of the employee, the case of employee's son for appointment on compassionate ground, was approved, however, before turn of said son of the employee for actual appointment could reach, he died. 4.15 Be that as it may, the fact relevant for present petition is that upon sad demise of the employee, the case of employee's son for appointment on compassionate ground, was approved, however, before turn of said son of the employee for actual appointment could reach, he died. Thereafter no one (out of three daughters) took any steps and almost 1 year thereafter, the mother of present petitioner claimed that petitioner's case in place of her son who died a year before, should be considered. 4.16 The respondent board considered the said request and the board disallowed the request/claim for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the daughter is married and that therefore, she cannot be considered "dependent" of deceased employee. Said decision was conveyed to the petitioner's mother vide board's letter dated 29.10.2007. 4.17 The petitioner and her mother accepted said decision, without protest or objection, inasmuch as any action in pursuance of said communication dated 29.10.2007 was not taken at the relevant time. 4.18 Not only the petitioner and her mother immediately did not take any action against the said decision, but for almost 8 years they remained silent and inactive. 4.19 Then, suddenly after lapse of almost 8 years, the petitioner filed present petition to seek above quoted relief. 5. In this background, the respondent board has opposed the petition. To justify their decision, respondents have narrated below mentioned submissions in their affidavit: "7. It is submitted that brother of the petitioner was considered for the purpose of granting compassionate appointment and his name was placed in wait list. It is submitted that as per the policy of respondent Corporation, pending appointment of the brother of the petitioner, he was being paid monthly amount of RS.500/- towards relief. It is submitted that unfortunately before brother of the petitioner can be appointed, he came to be expired. It is submitted that vide office order dated 06.07.2007 the name of the brother of the petitioner was recommended to be appointed at thermal power station Wanakbori. When the family of the Petitioner was intimated with regard to this fact, the respondent was intimated with regard to death of Vijaybhai i.e brother of petitioner and accordingly the brother of the petitioner could not be appointed. The brother of the petitioner expired on 11.06.2006. 8. When the family of the Petitioner was intimated with regard to this fact, the respondent was intimated with regard to death of Vijaybhai i.e brother of petitioner and accordingly the brother of the petitioner could not be appointed. The brother of the petitioner expired on 11.06.2006. 8. It is submitted that as can be seen from the case of the petitioner, petitioner came to be married in the meanwhile. It is submitted that therefore petitioner cannot be said to be dependent on the family of the deceased. 9. It. is submitted that on 12.07.2007 mother of the petitioner made application to appoint her daughter who is married, in place of Vijaybhai. It is submitted that on 12.07.2007 itself the petitioner also applied for getting compassionate appointment. It is submitted that mother of the petitioner was conveyed by the Corporation on 29.10.2007 that in view of the fact that petitioner is married, she is not entitled to get appointment as per GSO 295. The petitioner accepted the said decision of the Corporation. The said decision of the Corporation has not been challenged till date by the petitioner before competent court of law. It is submitted that thereafter in the year 2013, on the basis of newspaper cutting reports, mother of the petitioner sent letter dated 17.12.2013 to the Chief Engineer requesting the Corporation to give compassionate appointment to her daughter. It is submitted that only on the basis of paper cutting, after six years, application came to be made. It is submitted that since entire issue with regard to compassionate appointment attained finality in the year 2007 itself, Corporation has not responded to the said letter of the mother of the petitioner. It is submitted that it appears that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction, of this Hon'ble Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in any case the petitioner cannot be said to be dependent and therefore, GSO 295 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. In any case, the very purpose of the compassionate appointment would be frustrated if the Corporation is directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10. It is submitted that in any case the petitioner cannot be said to be dependent and therefore, GSO 295 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. In any case, the very purpose of the compassionate appointment would be frustrated if the Corporation is directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that petitioner has in fact acquiesced with the order dated 29.10.2007 and all of a sudden awaken in the year 2013 for seeking compassionate appointment, this petition may not be entertained. In fact so far as Corporation is concerned, it is a consistent policy of the Corporation not to give compassionate appointment to the married daughter of deceased. It is submitted that petitioner cannot seek appointment contrary to the policy of the Corporation. Even in case of other DISCOMs as well as in case of GUVNL, it is the policy that in case of married daughter, no compassionate appointment will be provided. Compassionate appointment has to be provided to one dependent (child or spouse). Married daughter cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased. 11. In any view of the matter, when one or more members of family of the deceased employee is/are employed within or outside the Board, the benefit would not be available. It is submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that her husband is not employed and/or that the petitioner and his mother are living miserable life. It is submitted that by writing repeated representations, petitioner cannot revive the dead cause. The petitioner has again wrote letter on 16.07.2015, however as stated aforesaid, when petitioner has no cause, no such letter can be considered. It is submitted that there in no inaction on part of the Corporation as alleged. In fact father of the petitioner had expired in the year 1997 and in the year 1999 brother of the petitioner was placed in wait list. However unfortunately before turn of the brother of the petitioner came for appointment from the list so prepared for the purpose of compassionate appointment, he also expired in the year 2006. Thus it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to contend that even after 29 years brother of the petitioner was not appointed." 6. Mr. However unfortunately before turn of the brother of the petitioner came for appointment from the list so prepared for the purpose of compassionate appointment, he also expired in the year 2006. Thus it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to contend that even after 29 years brother of the petitioner was not appointed." 6. Mr. Satta, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of GSO-295, the dependent/family of the deceased is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. He also submitted that widow of deceased employee is dependent of present petitioner because she does not have any source of income and that therefore, the petitioner, though a married daughter, should be considered eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. He also submitted that the respondent board had approved appointment in favour of son, however, actual appointment was not granted and his name was maintained on waiting list, however, he died while awaiting appointment order and that therefore, another member of the deceased employee's family should be granted appointment. 6.1 For the reasons mentioned in the reply affidavit, the respondents have opposed the said claim. The claim and petition are also opposed on the ground of delay. It is also claimed that after such lapse of time, the claim by the petitioner, if entertained, would not serve real purpose behind the policy to grant appointment on compassionate ground and that therefore, the claim should be rejected. 7. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record and also reply affidavit by the respondents as well as communication dated 29.10.2007. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that at the relevant time, i.e. after being informed the Board's decision vide letter dated 29.10.2007, the widow of deceased employee and/or the petitioner (married daughter) or any other member of the deceased employee's family did not challenge the communication dated 29.10.2007. 8.1 Not only this but for almost 8 years after 29.10.2007 no one challenged said decision. 8.2 Besides this, it is also relevant to note that even in present petition the petitioner has not challenged said decision. 8.3 Thus, the said decision has attained finality on both counts i.e. in view of passage of almost 10 years (i.e. delay) and also in view of the fact that even in 2015 when the petitioner filed this petition, the said decision is not challenged. 8.3 Thus, the said decision has attained finality on both counts i.e. in view of passage of almost 10 years (i.e. delay) and also in view of the fact that even in 2015 when the petitioner filed this petition, the said decision is not challenged. 8.4 As the said decision has attained finality, the request made in the petition cannot be entertained. 9. In absence of challenge against said order it would not be permissible or proper for the Court to make any observation or express any view or take any decision with regard to said decision. 10. Further in present case the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she is eligible for appointment on any post with the respondent board. The petitioner has not mentioned details about her educational qualification. Any document which would give any indication about her educational qualification is not available on record. Therefore it cannot be even assumed that the petitioner possesses even minimum qualification for any post even in lowest cadre. With relevant details it is not even asserted in the petition that the petitioner is eligible for appointment in any particular cadre or even in post in the lowest cadre of the respondent board. Therefore, even otherwise the petitioner's case cannot be considered and any direction cannot be issued. 11. Besides above mentioned two grounds which would restrain the Court from passing any order, one of the most relevant fact which would hold the Court back from entertaining petitioner's request and passing any direction as prayed for by the petitioner is inordinate and gross delay. 12. On this count it is relevant to note that the employee died in 1997. The son of the employee, whose case was considered and accepted for appointment on compassionate ground, died in June 2006. His name was maintained on waiting list however before his turn for actual appointment could reach, unfortunately he died. 13. After sad demise of the son of the deceased employee for almost one year any one from the family of the deceased employee, much less the petitioner did not take any action to seek appointment on compassionate ground, either independently or in place of son of the deceased employee. 13.1 Subsequently in July 2007 mother of present petitioner submitted a letter seeking appointment of her daughter. 13.1 Subsequently in July 2007 mother of present petitioner submitted a letter seeking appointment of her daughter. The fact that such request came to be made almost one years after death of the son (whose case for seeking compassionate appointment was accepted by the board) would go to show that his family was not in emergent need for employment. 13.2 It was passage of almost 13 months when the first move was made, that too by mother of the petitioner. 13.3 It is pertinent that the petitioner herself did not submit application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 13.4 Neither at the relevant time nor until now any application by the petitioner is submitted to the respondent. 14. The said fact also go to show that the family could survive without compassionate appointment of any member of the family. 14.1 The letter by the petitioner's mother was immediately considered by the board and the board conveyed its decision in October 2007. 14.2 Thereafter for almost 8 years i.e. until 2015 any family member of deceased employee, much less, the petitioner did not take any action either against said order dated 29.10.2007 or even they did not take any steps to pursue the request. In present petition though request for appointment on compassionate ground, however the said decision is not challenged on any ground. 15. After such gross delay (almost 10 years) the claim is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. 15.1 Besides this, the claim-at this stage - runs contrary to and defeats the object of appointment on compassionate ground. 16. Further, the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right, more so when (a) she does not fall within the purview of the policy/scheme (being married daughter of employee who died in 1999) and cannot be considered "dependent" of deceased employee; and (b) when 10 years have passed after the board rejected the claim and almost 20 years have passed since the death of employee. 17. 17. At this stage profitable reference can be had to the decision in cas of M/s. Eastern Coalfields vs. Anil Badyakar, (2009) AIR SC 2534, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:- "(6) So far as the question of nature and object of appointment on compassionate ground, it is relevant to take note of what is stated by this court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : - "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 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 the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." (Para 6) (7) In the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 , it was observed that :- "The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family." (Para 3) (8) In MMTC Ltd. vs. Pramoda Dei, (1997) 11 SCC 390 , it is observed by the court :- "As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment." (Para 4) (9) In the case of S. Mohan vs. Government of T.N., (1998) 9 SCC 485 , the court stated that :- "The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." (Para 4) (10) This court has observed in Director of Education (Secondary) vs. Pushpendra Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 192 :- "The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana this Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and has held that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family." (Para 8) (11) In the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 , the court has stated that :- "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." (Para 3) (12) In the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 , it was observed by the court that :- "It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis." (Para 4) (13) In so far as delay in approaching the authorities for such appointment is considered by this court in the case of Union of India vs. Bhagwan Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 476 , it was held as follows : "It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which resulted as early as September 1972. At the time Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972 there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. At the time Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972 there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable." (Para 8) (14) In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23 , it was stated that :- "It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad case, it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years." (Para 9) (15) In the case of State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412 , the court has held that :- "The purpose of providing employment to a dependant 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. 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." (Para 5) (16) In the case of Haryana SEB vs. Krishna Devi, (2002) 10 SCC 246, the court has observed that :- "As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family. The High Court did not consider the position of law and allowed the writ petition relying on an earlier decision of the High Court." (Para 7) (17) In the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. vs. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487 , the court has stated that :- "It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises." (Para 5) (18) In the case of State of J&K vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 , the court has held that :- "Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."(Para 11) (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 Personal 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." 17.1 It would also be appropriate to take into account the observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:- 4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and TV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of 141 this Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India' has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV. In the present case, the High Court has rightly pointed out that the State Government's instructions in question did not justify compassionate employment in Class 11 posts. However, it appears from the judgment that the State Government had made at least one exception and provided compassionate employment in Class II post on the specious ground that the person concerned had technical qualifications such as M.B.B.S., B.E., B.Tech. etc. Such exception, as pointed out above, is illegal, since it is contrary to the object of making exception to the general rule. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of his dependent nor the post which he held is relevant. It is for this reason that we are unable to understand the following observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment: "We are of the view that the extraordinary situations require extraordinary remedies and it is open to the Government in real hard cases to deviate from the letter and spirit of the instructions and to provide relief in cases where it is so warranted. To hold as a matter of law that the Government cannot deviate even minutely from the policy of providing appointment only against Class III and Class IV posts, would be to ignore the reality of life these days. It would be ridiculous to expect that a dependant of a deceased Class I Officer, should be offered appointment against a Class III or IV post. While we leave it to the Government to exercise its discretion judiciously in making appointments to Class I or 11 posts on compassionate grounds, yet a word of caution needs to be struck. It is to be noted that such appointments should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases, and in very exceptional circumstances. While we leave it to the Government to exercise its discretion judiciously in making appointments to Class I or 11 posts on compassionate grounds, yet a word of caution needs to be struck. It is to be noted that such appointments should be ordered in the rarest of rare cases, and in very exceptional circumstances. As a matter of fact, we would recommend that the Government should frame a policy even for such appointments." 5. It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employees and above Classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependant of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity. 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 the death of the sole 1 (1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662 : (1989) 11 ATC 878 : (1989) 4 SLR 327 142 breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 18. When the facts of present case, more particularly above mentioned events and gross delay are examined in light of above quoted observations by Hon'ble Apex Court it becomes clear that there is no basis or justification to entertain petitioner's claim in present petition. 19. There is one more perspective involved in present case. Since the petitioner has invoked and relied on GSO 295, it is necessary and worthwhile to turn to said GSO at this stage. According to said GSO 295, son or unmarried daughter, who is "dependent" member of family of deceased employee is entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground. 20. On this count it would be appropriate to take into account relevant clause under GSO 295. According to said GSO 295, son or unmarried daughter, who is "dependent" member of family of deceased employee is entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground. 20. On this count it would be appropriate to take into account relevant clause under GSO 295. Relevant clsuse 9 of the said GSO reads thus:- "1. in case of deceased employees. In case an employee dies during service in the Board, one dependant (Child or spouse) would be employed by the Board on any vacant post for which such dependant holds the necessary qualifications/experience. This benefit would not be available in cases where one or more members of the family of the deceased employees is/are already employed within or outside the Board. ' ' 2. in case of retired employees. Dependant children of retired employees who apply for posts advertised by the Board, will be given preference over other applicants having equal qualifications/experience. This benefit would not be available in cases where one or more members of the family of the deceased employee is/are already employed within or outside the Board. In both the above cases of recruitment, in relaxation of the maximum age prescribed, the maximum age limit would be considered to be 40 years of age. EXPLANATION : Family member means a child only. Such appointments will be made with the prior approval of the Head Office." 21. A married daughter - with her husband and separate family - cannot be considered dependent of deceased employee/dependent member of family of deceased employee. 21.1 The provision under GSO 295 do not take in their fold claim for compassionate appointment by married daughter and do not contemplate that married daughter would fall within purview of the expression "dependent child or spouse" of the deceased employee. 22. In present case the petitioner is, undisputedly, married daughter. She stays at her matrimonial house with her husband who maintains his family which includes present petitioner and that therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered dependent member of the family of deceased employees. 23. Further, when the petitioner filed present petition, without challenging the decision dated 29.10.2007, she had already attained 34 years of age i.e. she had crossed employable age. By now she is almost 36 years old. Therefore, also there is no justification to accept petitioner's request. 24. 23. Further, when the petitioner filed present petition, without challenging the decision dated 29.10.2007, she had already attained 34 years of age i.e. she had crossed employable age. By now she is almost 36 years old. Therefore, also there is no justification to accept petitioner's request. 24. In view of above facts and in light forgoing discussion and for reason mentioned above, claim by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to convince this Court to grant relief prayed for. Therefore the petition fails and consequently the same is rejected. Notice discharged.