JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard counsels for the parties. 2. Present writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 29.03.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad in Reference No.258 of 1999 whereby learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the workman, directing the management to give compassionate appointment to the dependent. 3. From the pleading and argument, it appears that the deceased employee namely, late Talo Devi was Badli/Casual worker under the petitioner- BCCL, who died in harness on 26.03.1984. At the time of her death, age of her son namely, Sri Pati Ram Sao was 10 years and he has applied for compassionate appointment on 26.07.1994 on attaining the age of majority. The application for compassionate appointment has been made after 10 years of her death. 4. Since, the application for compassionate appointment of the claimant has been rejected vide order dated 15.06.1995, industrial dispute has been raised in the year 1999 which has been referred by the concerned Government vide Reference No.258 of 1999. The terms of reference is as follows: "Whether the demand of the union for the employment of dependant of Smt. Talo Devi, Ex-W/L who died in 1984, when her dependant son was minor, is justified? If so, to what relief the dependant son of deceased is entitled to?" 5. Thereafter, award has been passed on 29.03.2004 in favour of the depandant-claimant, directing the petitioner-company to provide compassionate appointment to the dependant son of late Talo Devi. 6. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that there was no provision for keeping the dependant on live roaster. This concept, for the first time, has been introduced in NCWA-V w.e.f. 01.07.1991 and before that there was no such concept and further, he has relied upon para-3 of the Apex Court''s judgment ( Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192 ), which is quoted hereinbelow: "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 bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 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 bread earner 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, (1998) 5 SCC 192 : 1998 SCC (L and S) 1302 : (1998) 2 Pat LJR 181 . 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) 7. On the strength of the above judicial pronouncement, it has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the dependant has no legal right and as such, the award passed in favour of the dependant is not sustainable in law. Further, death of the deceased employee is of the year 1984 and industrial dispute has been raised in the year 1999 while application has been rejected in the year 1995. As the death has occurred in the year 1984, by now 35 years has lapsed and very purpose of compassionate appointment has been defeated. 8. Counsel for the respondent has argued that dependent was minor at the time of death of the workman and on attaining the age of majority, the application has been made. It has further been argued that since cause of action has arisen on attaining the age of majority, there is no delay in making such application. 9. It is admitted position that death of the workman has occurred on 26.03.1984 and at the time of death, dependant son was of 10 years. He has attaining the age of majority in the year 1992. The application for compassionate appointment has been made two years thereafter. The said application has been rejected in the year 1995, taking a plea that there is no provision for giving employment to a minor son after attaining majority. He has attaining the age of majority in the year 1992. The application for compassionate appointment has been made two years thereafter. The said application has been rejected in the year 1995, taking a plea that there is no provision for giving employment to a minor son after attaining majority. Further claim is belated one and as such, claim of the workman has been rejected. Upon rejection of claim in the year 1995, industrial dispute has been raised in the year 1999. 10. It is trite that compassionate appointment is exception to the Article 14 and 16. The relief can be granted only in accordance with the scheme, de hors scheme, no relief can be granted. In the present case, there was no such scheme whereby benefit can be extended to the minor dependant and as such, dependant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Further, in the case of compassion, delay defeats claim. 11. It is trite that compassionate appointment is to be extended to tide over distress of the family, due to premature death of bread earner and it is not a mode of appointment. In the present case, death has occurred in the year 1984. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that impugned award dated 29.03.2004 is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is hereby, quashed. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.