JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment. 3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The father of the petitioner, Ram Swaroop Tiwari died in harness on 22.11.1997 while working as a Roller Driver in the Road Construction Sub-division, Manoharpur. Having requisite qualification for compassionate appointment, the petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground on 23.02.1998 but the case of the petitioner was kept pending for a considerable period of time and it was only in the year 2003, the petitioner was asked to submit certain documents regarding his claim for compassionate appointment. In response to which, the petitioner submitted the documents in prescribed format on 22.10.2003, with a request to the authority to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. However, when nothing was heard from the side of respondent-authorities, the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 13926 of 2008, which was dismissed by Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 28.07.2015, on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on 22.07.2017, the petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground afresh. However, when nothing was done on the representation dated 22.07.2017, the petitioner again on 24.02.2020, filed another representation before the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand requesting therein to take appropriate steps for his appointment on compassionate ground but till date no action has been taken on his said request. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner applied for compassionate appointment within time and it was the respondent-authorities, who did not pass any orders for a considerable period of time and thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to knock the door of Hon’ble Patna High Court. Though petitioner ought to have preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as at the time of death, his father was working in the city of Jamshedpur but due to wrong advise, he filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court which stood dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Though petitioner ought to have preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as at the time of death, his father was working in the city of Jamshedpur but due to wrong advise, he filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court which stood dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, several representations have been filed by the petitioner before the respondent-authorities but till date no order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground since the father of the petitioner was the sole breadearner of his family. 5. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner has approached this Court for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment after 23 years from the date of death of his father. Learned counsel further submits that the compassionate appointment is not a source of appointment but an exception, and the purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee on his death, that may suddenly find itself in state of destitution and the whole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate appointment. Admittedly, father of the petitioner was the sole bread-earner of his family but any appointment cannot be granted dehors the rules. 6. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ application. From the records of the case it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court for getting compassionate appointment after an inordinate delay of 23 years and the petitioner is silent over the said inordinate delay and nothing has been whispered in the instant writ petition as to what has prevented the petitioner from knocking the door of this Court for 23 long years. The Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 138, has held as under:- “6. ……………….. 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:- “16. ………………. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.” 9. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that objective to give compassionate appointment is to give support to the bereaved family to come over the immediate financial crisis which it faces after the death of the sole earning member of the family. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that objective to give compassionate appointment is to give support to the bereaved family to come over the immediate financial crisis which it faces after the death of the sole earning member of the family. In the instant case, the petitioner and his family members have survived for more than 23 years and it is only in the year 2020, this writ petition has been filed claiming compassionate appointment, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed.