ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed by appellant - original petitioner against the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 16906 of 2017, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant - original petitioner came to be dismissed. 2. The background of the facts which have given rise to this Letters Patent Appeal is that the father of the original petitioner was working as S.B.O., Lakhani Sub Station of respondent Transmission Corporation, who died on 22.04.1994. Accordingly, the mother of the original petitioner made an application on 21.11.1994 seeking compassionate employment. The case of the mother of the original petitioner was considered and approved by the authority at the relevant point of time. However, mother could not be immediately appointed due to non availability of vacancy and later on, she on her own conveyed to opponent authority that due to her health condition, she was not willing to accept to appointment and by virtue of letter dated 15.04.1996, the mother requested the respondent authority to extend the appointment to her son i.e. present appellant - original petitioner and after a long lapse of period, the original petitioner for the first time after 18 years wrote a letter from 10.07.2006 requesting for grant of compassionate appointment and having not considered the same, the original petitioner approached this Court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the year 2017, which came to be dismissed after hearing both the sides vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2019, which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Harnish V. Darji appearing on behalf of the appellant - original petitioner has contended that at the relevant point of time when father had died, the petitioner was minor and as soon as he attained the age of majority, the mother requested opponents - original respondents to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the original petitioner and that ought to have been granted to the original petitioner since there is a consistent policy to extend such benefit of compassionate employment. Mr. Mr. Darji, learned advocate has further submitted that compassionate employment is a legitimate right of a legal heir since death has taken place during the tenure of service and as such simply on the ground of delay, the authority can not take such decision of not extending the benefit. Mr. Darji, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - original petitioner has contended that the mother in terms has requested that she on account of her health issue could not accept the appointment and specific letter was written to extend the benefit to the original petitioner and as such the authority was not justified in declining the request which aspect has not been properly construed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the impugned order deserves to be corrected. No other submissions have been made. 4. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant - original petitioner and having gone through the detailed order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have noticed that here is original petitioner who has continued to ventilate the grievance, even after unreasonable period of time having been lapsed and the death has occurred of the father way back in year 1994 and despite the request made by mother in the year 1996 for a pretty long period, the petitioner has never approached this Court, and therefore, such enormous delay is not possible to be unnoticed by this Court. 5. Additionally, we have seen from the order, which has been passed that here is the case in which the original petitioner and the family has availed the benefit of compassionate allowance to the extent of Rs. 500/- per month which was sanctioned and paid to mother in view of the general standing order 312 dated 24.08.1998 and having received such benefit of compassionate allowance and having chosen not to accept the employment which was earlier offered to mother, this compassionate employment cannot be asked by son as a matter or right. All the due benefits have been undisputedly received by family i.e. original petitioner as well as mother which can be seen to have been considered by the learned Single Judge. It was also found by the learned Single Judge that, as stated by original petitioner that he wrote a letter on 10.07.2006, but such letter was not found for seeking compassionate appointment but for getting compassionate payment of Rs. It was also found by the learned Single Judge that, as stated by original petitioner that he wrote a letter on 10.07.2006, but such letter was not found for seeking compassionate appointment but for getting compassionate payment of Rs. 500/- per month and on the contrary, on 09.07.2006 letter/application which is said to have been given in fact no such application was found. Resultantly, as the benefit of compassionate employment was sought after almost a period of 23 years from the death of father, the learned Judge has rightly not considered the case of the original petitioner. 6. We have seen that detailed order is passed by the learned Single Judge after considering each and every submission of learned advocate for the petitioner and having found no merit in the petition rightly dismissed the same. The reasons and finding which has been recorded in paragraph No. 6 to the judgment deserves to be quoted hereinafter: "6. Not only the above aspects emerge, the present petition was filed after 23 years from the date of death of the father. The family has survived for all these years. The very purpose and object of compassionate appointment or benefit on the said ground is to give relief to the family in need at the juncture when the members of the family may have lost the bread-earner. The compassionate appointment is a claim to be lodged and a benefit to be conferred within reasonable time. The passage of time by itself would frustrate the rationale of giving appointment of such nature. The petition is filed in the year 2017, which is after the impugned decision which was communicated on 10th September, 2014. In approaching the Court also, there is delay of three years, which has again gone unexplained." 7. From the above observations and the findings, we find that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is not only sound, but in the facts and circumstances of the case accurate and does not warrant any interference. Since the appeal lacks merit, the same accordingly dismissed. 8. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil Application does not survive and stands dismissed accordingly.