JUDGMENT : I.A. No.1163 of 2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 7 days, which has occurred in preferring the present appeal. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the application and also considering the facts that no counter affidavit has been filed, opposing the interlocutory application, by the respondents, we are of the opinion that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, the delay of 7 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned and this application stands allowed. L.P.A. No.333 of 2019 5. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the order/judgment dated 19.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.651 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioner, for providing him appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father in harness on 05.07.1998 while working as ‘Assistant Teacher’ in Hatia Para Middle School, Dalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum, has been rejected by not interfering with the impugned order as contained in memo no. 904 dated 25.09.2007. 6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated, read hereunder as: The father of the writ petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher at Hatia Para Middle School, Dalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum died in harness on 05.07.1998 leaving behind three daughters and one son. After the death of the father, the elder sister of the petitioner submitted representation before the respondents authorities for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits as also for compassionate appointment but it did not evoke any response. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6199 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2005 with a direction to the writ petitioner to file representation regarding death-cum-retiral benefits as also for compassionate appointment before respondents authorities, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate order. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner submitted representation before the respondents-authorities for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected vide order as contained in Memo No. 904 dated 25.09.2007 on the ground that the application has been filed belatedly i.e. after lapse of seven years. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner submitted representation before the respondents-authorities for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected vide order as contained in Memo No. 904 dated 25.09.2007 on the ground that the application has been filed belatedly i.e. after lapse of seven years. Being aggrieved with the order of rejection of claim of the writ petitioner regarding compassionate appointment, the writ petitioner again approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the learned Single Judge after considering the reasons assigned in the impugned order passed by the competent authority has refused to interfere with the same, which is the subject matter of the present intra-Court appeal. 7. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that prior to rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner the sister of the writ petitioner had made application for appointment on compassionate ground but no decision was taken thereon. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 651 of 2008 and therefore, there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioner rather there is laches on the part of the administrative authority for which the writ petitioner cannot be blamed and left out to suffer. He further submits that the death of the father of the writ petitioner has occurred on 05.07.1998 and if the learned Single Judge would have consider the fact about making a application by the sister of the writ petitioner, the matter could have been different since the sister of the writ petitioner had filed application within reasonable time before the competent authority. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference by this Court. 8. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned A.C to Sr. S.C-III appearing for the respondents submits by referring to the circular dated 25.05.1989 which mandates that the period of limitation for making an application for compassionate ground as five years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference by this Court. 8. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned A.C to Sr. S.C-III appearing for the respondents submits by referring to the circular dated 25.05.1989 which mandates that the period of limitation for making an application for compassionate ground as five years. Admittedly, herein the death of the father of the writ petitioner took place on 05.07.1998 and thereafter the application for compassionate appointment was filed by the writ petitioner on 10.02.2006 i.e. after lapse of reasonable period and therefore, the circular since provides consideration of appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of application for compassionate ground to be filed within a period of five years from the death of the deceased-employee, the decision taken by the administrative authority cannot be said to suffer from an error. He further submits that though the sister of the writ petitioner made an application but that has not been finally decided and even accepting that she had submitted application which was not considered, she ought to have approached the Court of law but she kept mum and thereafter, the writ petitioner has approached this Court invoking power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore that ground cannot be taken to be proper ground for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that on the basis of these factual aspects, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. The admitted fact is that the death of the father of the writ petitioner took place on 05.07.1998 while he was working as ‘Assistant Teacher’ in Hatia Para Middle School, Dalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum. The writ petitioner made an application for compassionate ground on 10.02.2006 after a period of about eight years from the date of death of his father, for which no cogent reason has been assigned. The said application of the writ petitioner was rejected by the competent authority of the State Government vide order dated 25.09.2007. The writ petitioner made an application for compassionate ground on 10.02.2006 after a period of about eight years from the date of death of his father, for which no cogent reason has been assigned. The said application of the writ petitioner was rejected by the competent authority of the State Government vide order dated 25.09.2007. Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ Court, agreeing with the stand taken by the competent authority of the State Government in its order dated 25.09.2007 whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected being time barred, dismissed the writ petition. 10. It is settled position of law that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is 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 held by the deceased rather it is for the reason that a death of an employee in harness may take away the source of livelihood of the family. Thus, the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only if it is satisfied that the family will not be able to meet the crisis, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In Jagdish Prasad Vrs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301 , Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the object of compassionate appointment held that the object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who dies in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In State of U.P. and Others Vrs. Paras Nath reported in AIR 1998 SC 2612 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. In Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vrs. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. In Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vrs. K. R. Vishwanath reported in (2005) 7 SCC 206 the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration its various judgments, reiterated that the appointment to the public service can only be made on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to general constitutional mandate in the interest of justice under peculiar circumstances. It was further observed that where law prescribes limitation for making an application for compassionate appointment, it has to be adhered to. 11. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred herein above, it is settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment cannot be considered to be a source of recruitment or another mode of recruitment to government/public service. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment for the dependent of the deceased-Government servant is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family whose sole bread-earner died leaving the family in lurch. The purpose is to enable the family to overcome its immediate financial needs. Compassionate appointment cannot be given as a matter of course, and depends upon various factors, including the financial condition of the family of the deceased and other relevant factors. Since compassionate appointment is deviation from the constitutional mandate contemplated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which permits employment providing equal and fair opportunity to all the eligible persons, it is necessary that the compassionate appointment is regulated by law/rules so as not to nullify the constitutional spirit. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that the application for compassionate appointment was submitted after considerable delay of about eight years, and the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred herein above, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in concurring with the view taken competent authority of the State Government for rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was initially submitted by his sister but no decision was taken, even accepting the same no relief can be granted as before the writ Court the cause of action pertains to the party aggrieved but herein even if the sister was aggrieved as no decision was taken by the administrative authority, it was incumbent upon the sister of the writ petitioner approach the writ Court but she has chosen not to approach this Court rather her brother approached the writ Court by initially by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6199 of 2005 and thereafter the present writ petition, outcome of which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. Therefore, according to our considered view, there is no force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant for granting relief to the writ petitioner. 13. This Court, after taking into consideration the facts in entirety and the judicial pronouncements as referred above and considering the fact that the learned Single Judge has delve upon the issue of limitation, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 15. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the retiral benefit due to the writ petitioner after death of the father of the writ petitioner has not been paid. If that be so, the State authority-Secretary, Literacy and Education Department is directed to ensure payment of admissible retiral benefit in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 16. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands disposed of.