ORDER : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is aggrieved of the order dated 05.08.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.6943 of 2013. By this order his challenge to the order dated 04.01.2013 by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been declined has failed. 2. Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the employer-M/s CCL which has taken about 4 years to take a decision on the application for compassionate appointment cannot take the plea of delay in raising a claim for compassionate appointment. 3. It is submitted that the application for compassionate appointment for the elder brother of the appellant was submitted within time and after his death another application was submitted on 03.08.2002 which was also within time. 4. Briefly stated, mother of the appellant who was employed under the respondent-M/s CCL died in harness on 24.09.2000; she was appointed on 20.12.1973. An application for compassionate appointment for the elder brother of the appellant was submitted on 17.03.2001, who unfortunately died on 23.03.2002 in a road accident. Before the writ Court, it was pleaded that another application for compassionate appointment, this time for the appellant, was submitted on 03.08.2002. However, it was denied by the respondent-M/s CCL that any such application was received. It is stated that an application for compassionate appointment to the appellant was submitted only on 08.10.2009. 5. The learned writ Court has held, thus; “Further, the father of the petitioner was in employment under the Central Coalfields Limited at the time of death of the mother of the petitioner. Further, it appears that the elder brother of this petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment but he died during the intervening period and on his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment by substituting his name in place of his deceased elder brother. The cause of action, so far as petitioner is concerned, arose only after the death of his elder brother. He claims that only after the death of his elder brother he could have filed this application for substitution. I find the contention is wholly misconceived. There cannot be any concept of substitution of an applicant on death of another applicant in an application of compassionate appointment.” 6. He claims that only after the death of his elder brother he could have filed this application for substitution. I find the contention is wholly misconceived. There cannot be any concept of substitution of an applicant on death of another applicant in an application of compassionate appointment.” 6. In the first place, the dispute on the date of submission of the first application for compassionate appointment cannot be resolved in the present proceeding. The application dated 08.10.2009 was submitted about 9 years after the death of the employee, mother of the appellant. The object behind compassionate appointment is to extend a helping hand to the family in distress. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; 2.“....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. 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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable land valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution . No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. relief against destitution . No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and 6 the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 7. It has been brought on record that father of the appellant is working and the family has survived for long 9 years before the claim for compassionate appointment to the appellant was raised and it was about 13 years since then when the employer- M/s CCL passed order dated 04.01.2013. Today, it is about 19 years and the appellant has either crossed the age of 35 years or he was not eligible for appointment having not attained the age of 18 years at the time when his mother died. The delay by the employer- M/s CCL in taking a final decision in the matter, in view of the aforesaid facts, is of no consequence. This is not such a case in which employment has been denied to the appellant on account of laches and delay on the part of the employer. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.6943 of 2013 and, accordingly, L.P.A No.419 of 2017 is dismissed.