ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash communication bearing No. Ref. No.(i) MGC/HRM/2352/2014 dated 14.12.2014 and communication bearing No.MFC:RL:RTI:69:2017:SS dated 14.09.2017, Annexures-A and E respectively and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – Bank to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 28.07.2017, Annexure – D. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father Sri.K. Gopala was working as sub-staff in the respondent – Canara Bank (for short ‘the Bank’) having been appointed on 15.09.1998. The petitioner’s father while working in the respondent – Bank died on 14.03.1999. It is stated that at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner was aged 4 years and 5 months. It is also stated that petitioner’s mother who was also seriously ill, died on 02.01.2000 leaving behind the petitioner. The petitioner was the only child of the deceased parents. The petitioner attained the age of majority on 19.10.2012, his date of birth being 19.10.1994. Immediately thereafter the petitioner made application to the respondent – Bank on 06.11.2014 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The 2nd respondent vide communication dated 14.12.2014 Annexure–A communicated Bank’s inability to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter the petitioner made representation once again to the 1st respondent on 28.07.2017 praying for consideration of his appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner had also made an application on 31.08.2017 under Right to Information Act seeking certain information from the respondent – Bank. The said request was rejected under communication dated 14.09.2017. Thereafter, the present writ petition is preferred on 23.11.2017 challenging the endorsements dated 14.12.2014 and 14.09.2017. The respondents in their statement of objection contend that no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated so as to seek for a writ of mandamus. Further it is stated that no legal or statutory right of the petitioner is infringed so as to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that writ petition challenging the endorsement issued on 14.12.2014 is filed in the year 2017, which suffers from delay and laches. Further it is stated that no legal or statutory right of the petitioner is infringed so as to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that writ petition challenging the endorsement issued on 14.12.2014 is filed in the year 2017, which suffers from delay and laches. It is stated that as on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioner scheme for payment of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment, which was introduced w.e.f. 14.02.2005 was in existence and all applications were required to be examined as per the new scheme. The respondent – Bank processed the application of the petitioner and conveyed its inability to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds under Annexure – A dated 14.12.2014. On the death of the father of the petitioner and on the request of Smt. Gange, who was the guardian of the petitioner as per Court order, Bank granted family pension commencing form 31.01.2000. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment at the time of death of the employee, application for appointment on compassionate ground ought to have been submitted within a period of 2 ½ years from the date of death of the employee. No such application has been received either from the dependant or any other close relative of the petitioner within the stipulated time. Thus prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.P. Muthanna learned counsel for respondents through video conference. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents failed to consider the representation/application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in its proper perspective in accordance with circular dated 08.05.1993. The learned counsel would submit that clause 1 of 1993 scheme requires an application to be made by the dependent of the deceased employee within 2 ½ years from the date of the death of the employee and clause 2 provides that in case of dependent of deceased employee is a minor request could be made to keep open the offer of appointment till the minor attains majority. It is his submission that the petitioner lost both father and mother in the year 1999 and 2000 respectively. As on the date of death of his parents he was aged about 5 years and he was the only son. It is his submission that the petitioner lost both father and mother in the year 1999 and 2000 respectively. As on the date of death of his parents he was aged about 5 years and he was the only son. There was no other person to make a request to the Bank to keep the offer of appointment open till the petitioner attained majority. As such the petitioner made application seeking appointment on compassionate ground immediately on attaining majority on 06.11.2014. It is his submission that the petitioner’s request ought to have been considered under the 1993 scheme and ought to have been provided with appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CANARA BANK AND ANOTHER VS. M. MAHESH KUMAR reported in 2015 (7) SCC 412 , the learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s application requires to be considered under 1993 scheme, which was in existence as on the date of death of the petitioner’s father. Thus he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri.T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel appearing the respondents submits that the writ petition is liable to be rejected only on the ground of delay and laches. The father of the petitioner died on 14.03.1999 and application for compassionate appointment was made on 06.11.2014 i.e., more than 15 years after the death of the deceased employee. The learned counsel points out that the petitioner even failed to make application seeking compassionate appointment immediately on attaining the age of majority, It is submitted that the petitioner attained majority on 19.10.2012, whereas application requesting compassionate appointment was made two years thereafter. The learned counsel would submit that delay on the part of the petitioner defeats the purpose of providing compassionate appointment. Further he submits that application for family pension was made by one Smt. Gange, guardian of the petitioner and on her application family pension was granted to the petitioner from 31.01.2000. The said Smt. Gange, who made application as guardian of the petitioner as per Court orders, for sanction of family pension had not made any request to keep open the offer of appointment on compassionate grounds till the petitioner attains majority. It is his submission that no person could claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. But could claim appointment only on the basis of available scheme. It is his submission that no person could claim appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. But could claim appointment only on the basis of available scheme. Further he submits that as on the date of application of the petitioner the scheme available had no provision for appointment on compassionate ground, but it only provided ex-gratia. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Admitted facts are that the petitioner’s father late Gopala was working as sub-staff in the respondent – Bank, who died in harness on 14.03.1999. Thereafter within six months the mother of the petitioner also died. It is also not in dispute that as stated by the respondent one Smt. Gange was appointed as Guardian of the petitioner as per Court orders and on her application for grant of family pension, family pension was granted from 31.01.2000. It is an admitted fact that the said Smt. Gange, guardian of the petitioner nor any other relative requested the respondent – Bank to keep open the offer of appointment till the petitioner attains the age of majority, since the petitioner was aged about five years as on the date of the death of his father. Under 1993 scheme application for appointment shall be made within 2 ½ years from the date of death of an employee. Further in case of minor dependent, request could be made by family of the deceased employee to keep open the offer of appointment till the minor attains majority. The contention of the petitioner that he lost both father and mother in the year 1999 and 2000 respectively and he was the only legal representative, who was aged five years could not make request to keep open the offer of appointment till he attains majority, cannot be accepted for the reason that the guardian appointed by the Court Smt. Gange made application for sanction of family pension and the family pension was paid from 31.01.2000. The guardian along with the application for sanction of family pension could have made an application requesting to keep open the offer of appointment till the petitioner attains majority. 7. The date of birth of the petitioner being 19.10.1994, he attained majority on 19.10.2012. But the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made on 06.11.2014, more than two years thereafter. The request of the petitioner was rejected under Annexure-A letter dated 14.12.2014. 7. The date of birth of the petitioner being 19.10.1994, he attained majority on 19.10.2012. But the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made on 06.11.2014, more than two years thereafter. The request of the petitioner was rejected under Annexure-A letter dated 14.12.2014. The petitioner slept over the matter and filed one more representation under Annexure –D only on 28.07.2017. Thereafter filed the writ petition only on 23.11.2017. The writ petition is filed more than five years after the petitioner attained majority and more than three years after the endorsement at Annexure –A dated 14.12.2014 was issued. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner took five years to approach this Court. Annexure –E dated 14.09.2017 endorsement relates to rejection of petitioner’s request for providing certain documents under Right to Information Act 2005, and it would not provide any fresh cause of action to the petitioner. The petitioner is not vigilant in prosecuting his requirement of compassionate appointment, which means he is not in need of compassionate appointment. The object and intention behind providing compassionate appointment to a member of the deceased employee is to overcome the financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee, while in service. If one is able to survive for more than 20 years, it would mean that there is no necessity to provide appointment on compassionate ground, and it would mean that crisis is over as on the date of filing the writ petition. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court there is no inherent right to seek for compassionate appointment nor compassionate appointment could be sought as a matter of right. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 at paragraph 6 it is held as follows :- “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. 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 breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the CANARA BANK decision relied upon by the petitioner cited supra laid down the law that even after granting the terminal benefits if applicant is a minor, Bank could keep appointment open till minor attains majority. In the instant case, the guardian of the petitioner Smt. Gange nor any other relative requested the Bank to keep open the offer of appointment till the petitioner attains majority. Even thereafter the petitioner on attaining the age of majority kept quiet for more than two years and thereafter made application seeking appointment, thus the principles laid down in CANARA BANK’S case would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein. The present writ petition was filed more than three years after the rejection of the petitioner’s request. The claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches. 9. For the reasons record above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.