JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nisarg N. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. Perused the record. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee who was working as a Helper in the Gujarat Electricity Board. On 9.3.2009, when he alone with the other employees of the Board were carrying out repair work of the electricity line in Dholka Rural Sub Division, the petitioner's father came into contact with the live wire and as a result thereof, the father of the petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner, mother and a younger brother. Special Civil Suit No. 135 of 2010 was filed before the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dholka seeking compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. By judgment and decree dated 3.4.2018, the suit was decreed with a direction to the Electricity Company to pay compensation of Rs. 14,20,000/-. It appears that the petitioner awaited for the outcome of the Civil Suit and only thereafter applied for appointment on compassionate ground. By the impugned communication, the company appears to have rejected the same on the ground that the amount is yet not withdrawn before the Civil Court and till such Purshis of withdrawal is fled, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Mr. Nisarg Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly on the death of the father, the family was left without financial resources. They reasonably awaited till 2018 and now when the compensation is awarded, insistence for withdrawing such compensation is being done and in absence of such withdrawal, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Limited reported in 2000(6) SCC 493 , wherein, it has been held that mere pensionary benefits are no substitute to appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent - Vij Company taking the Court through the affidavit-in-reply would submit that there is an undue delay on the part of the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father in the year 2009; after more than 9 years only in the year 2018 that the petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground. The delay itself would therefore frustrate the object of the appointment. Even otherwise, the decree in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 14,20,000/- with 6% interest was passed and when the judgment was challenged before the High Court, the amount has been apportioned in three equal portions, the mother, the petitioner and the son and since the petitioner and the brother were minor, the amount was required to be invested in Fixed Deposit. Since now the petitioner has become major, the amount is required to be disbursed. Obviously therefore, it cannot be said that the family is in a destitute condition. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, what is evident therefore is that for the death of the father which occurred in the year 2009, it is not proper for the petitioner to have awaited till the year 2018; 9 years after the death for appointment on compassionate ground. Even otherwise, now, by virtue of the compensation that the petitioner and family are entitled as is evident from the affidavit-in-reply that amount of Rs. 21,95,837/- will be payable to the petitioner, the family thereof, it cannot be said that the action of the respondent in denying appointment on compassionate ground is bad. On the twin grounds of delay and also on sufficient compensation having been received by the family, it is not the case where the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground deserves to be considered. 7. In view of above, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.