JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for an appropriate direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for dependent employment. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are that father of the petitioner was an employee under the respondents who died in harness on 25.05.1983. It is said that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he was only around one month old. Subsequently, after attaining the age of majority he has been making correspondences with the respondents seeking for dependent employment in terms of the policy of the dependent employment applicable in the respondents' establishment. 3. A perusal of the pleadings would show that the petitioner reached the age of majority of 18 years in the year 2001. The instant writ petition has been filed in January 2022 that is after around 21-22 years after the petitioner attained the age of majority. The writ petition in fact is being filed after 39 years from the date of death of the deceased employee which took place in May, 1983. 4. The aforesaid factual matrix of the case itself would evidently reveal that present is a case which suffers from inordinate delay laches. The very purpose for having a scheme for compassionate appointment is to ensure tiding away the immediate crises that the family members of the deceased face on account of the death of the breadwinner. 22 years and 39 years for the purpose of filing of a writ petition before the High Court seeking for a relief of dependent employment undoubtedly is a pretty long time for the Writ Court to entertain petitions of such nature. 5. Further, from the perusal of the pleadings would also reflect that it is not a case where the petitioner have not knocked the door of the Court on an earlier occasion. The petitioner has in-fact has filed earlier writ petition so far as the monetary benefits payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee on his death. If that be so, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the Court if at all there was inaction on the part of the respondents for non-consideration of the application for dependent employment when the petitioner is said to have applied first. 6. If that be so, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the Court if at all there was inaction on the part of the respondents for non-consideration of the application for dependent employment when the petitioner is said to have applied first. 6. It would be relevant at the juncture to take note of a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited v. Gouri Devi, in Civil Appeal No. 6910 of 2021, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 has held as under:- “5.2 As held by this Court in the case of Punjab State Power Coporation Limited and Ors. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 delay in pursing claim/approaching court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished. Before this Court there was a delay of 07 years in approaching the Court and this Court observed and held that on the ground of delay itself, the heir/dependent of the deceased employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. 5.3 In the case of State of J & K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766 , this Court had occasion to consider the delay and laches in case of appointment on compassionate ground. By dismissing the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, which was made after a period of four and a half years of death of the deceased employee, it was held that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to general rule that appointment to public office should be made on the basis of competitive merits. It is further observed that once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. This Court also in the case of Ku. Tapswinee Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh in WP(S) No. 1906 of 2019 in paragraphs 4 to 7 dealing with the aspect of delay laches in claiming dependent/compassionate appointment, has held as under “4. At the outset, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner to be quite stale and having been raised at an inordinate, unexplained and belated stage. Tapswinee Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh in WP(S) No. 1906 of 2019 in paragraphs 4 to 7 dealing with the aspect of delay laches in claiming dependent/compassionate appointment, has held as under “4. At the outset, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner to be quite stale and having been raised at an inordinate, unexplained and belated stage. We are in March, 2019, as such it is more than 24 years from the date of death of the employee and about 11 years from the date the petitioner attained the age of majority. Both these periods would be too long a period for entertaining a claim application for compassionate appointment. It has been repeatedly settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the claim for compassionate is meant to tide over the immediate crisis that the family faces on the death of the bread earner or the earning member in the family. Compassionate appointment cannot be considered as an another source of recruitment nor can it be converted into another mode of recruitment. The claim for compassionate appointment always has to be made promptly on the death of the deceased employee by any of the members of the family of the deceased employee. 5. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and other v. Prabhat Singh reported in (2012) 13 SCC 412 where in paragraph-8 the Supreme Court has held as under: “18. The very object of making provision for appointment on compassionate grounds, is to provide succour to a family dependent on a government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole breadwinner. Delay in seeking such a claim is an antithesis for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in raising such a claim is contradictory to the object sought to be achieved.” Further in Paragraph-19 also the Supreme Court in very categorical terms while restricting the scope of interference in a petition for compassionate appointment has held as under: “19. The courts and tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. The courts and tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. The courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment to all those who seek a court's intervention. The courts and tribunals must understand that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate grounds could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverished family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are misplaced sympathy and compassion.” 6. Though counsel for the petitioner relied upon a couple of decisions of this Court as also the Supreme Court, one of which is (2018) 4 SLR 771 (SC) in the case of Supriya Suresh Patil @ Sow Supriya Pratik Kadam v. State of Maharashtra and Others, but down the line this Court finds that there is a recent decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 1st of March, 2019 in the case of the Government of India & Another v. P. Venkatesh in Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2019 (SLP © No. 5810 of 2017) wherein a similar issue came up for consideration and the Supreme Court came down heavily upon the High Court which had entertained the writ petition at a belated stage and had allowed the application for compassionate appointment. 7. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Venkatesh (supra), this Court finds it difficult to entertain the present writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The Writ Petition thus deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.” 8. In the instant case also the fact that the present writ petition has been filed after 39 years from the date of death of the deceased employee and 22 years after the petitioner having attained the age of minority. The present writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly rejected only on the ground of delay laches. The rejection of this writ petition would not preclude the petitioner in approaching the respondents on the administrative side, if the rules so permits.