ORDER 1. This intra-Court appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 26.2.2020 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 2683/2005. 2. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner in 2005 direction was sought for appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of his father. The death was in the year 2001. 3. Learned Single Judge taking into consideration the fact that petitioner’s father died in the year 2001 and the family was not in immediate financial crisis, as the retiral dues were duly settled and the widow was getting regularl pension, declined the indulgence observing: “Law is well settled as regards claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The purpose for providing appointment on compassionate ground is only to tide over immediate financial crisis if the bread earner had died in harness and the family was in penury. Moreover, the policy in vogue is required to be adhered to while considering the candidature for appointment on compassionate ground. Since the object of the policy is to ensure that family is not in penury after demise of the sole bread earner and the regret for appointment on compassionate ground in the instant case is for the reason that aforesaid amount was released to the petitioner's family with monthly pension referred above, hence, family was not in penury. Under such circumstances, no fault can be found with the decision of the authorities. Before parting with the case, it is apposite to observe that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right but is a benevolent measure; a dimension of social welfare. Nevertheless, the employer has formulated a policy for regulation of appointment on compassionate ground, no exception thereto can be taken as the decision taken in the instant case, in accordance with the policy.” 4. The order is being criticized on the ground that learned Single Judge glossed over the fact that the petitioner’s father died due to the injuries sustained in road accident in the year 2001. However, the pleadings are silent as to what steps were taken by the family to seek compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act. Even if that is not relevant as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. The pleadings are silent about not taking any steps for over three years putting up the claim for compassionate appointment. However, the pleadings are silent as to what steps were taken by the family to seek compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act. Even if that is not relevant as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. The pleadings are silent about not taking any steps for over three years putting up the claim for compassionate appointment. The petitioner also fails to point out any breach of the policy evolved by the respondent Bank for granting appointment on compassionate ground. Merely saying that the family had incur a debt for the treatment will not be sufficient to draw a conclusion that the family was in dire financial crisis, when admittedly the injury sustained was while the father of petitioner was in service and was entitled for medical reimbursement. The pleadings to that effect are conspicuously absent. Be that as it may. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a privilege to assist the family to tide over immediate financial crisis due to sudden death of sole bread earner. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 11 SCC 384 , it is observed- “11. However, it is now a well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the Public Sector Undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.” 5. The petitioner did not challenge these findings for over 4 years and has approached this Court in 2005. Being trite it is that delay and laches can be the ground on which an interference is declined. In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 , it is held : “54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See Rup Diamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356 , State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotraya (1996) 6 SCC 267 and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538 .” 6. It is further held in Ashok Kumar vs District Magistrate, Basti (2012) 3 SCC 311 :- “10. … It is time and again, stated that a party who has slept over his right since is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High Court.” 7. In the case at hand the family having survived for years there exists no right in the petitioner for compassionate appointment being rightly dispelled. 8. In view whereof no indulgence is caused. Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.