ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his employment on compassionate ground under the National Coal Wage Agreement. 3. The grandfather of this petitioner Late Bhuneshwar Ram was a permanent employee of the respondent Central Coalfields Limited. He died on 17.12.1997. On 10.05.1998, Pradeep Ram, the youngest son of Late Bhuneshwar Ram applied for compassionate appointment. On the ground of belated application, the prayer of compassionate appointment was rejected on 16.04.2012. On 04.05.2012, the Deputy General Manager (P) requested the General Manager (P& IR) to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment, but on 02.05.2014, said Pradeep Ram expired. After the death of Pradeep Ram, the father of this petitioner namely Rajendra Prasad claimed compassionate appointment. On 23.07.2014, Rajendra Prasad, i.e. the father of this petitioner made an application to substitute him in place of deceased Pradeep Ram. His father also died on 02.08.2014, which prompted this petitioner to seek compassionate appointment. As the respondents have not granted compassionate appointment to this petitioner nor have taken a decision, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondent Central Coalfields Limited, wherein they stated that Pradeep Ram had submitted a representation on 21.02.2012, stating that he is physically disabled and, therefore, his brother Rajendra Ram be given permission to apply for compassionate appointment. It is further stated that thereafter, on 22.07.2013, Rajendra Ram, son of the deceased employee Late Bhuneshwar Ram represented for his employment on compassionate ground. They further stated that after verification, the claim of Rajendra Ram for compassionate appointment was rejected vide letter dated 16.08.2013, on the ground of delay. After the death of Rajendra Ram, his son, i.e. the petitioner submitted representation on 21.06.2016, seeking compassionate appointment in place of his late grandfather. 5. The Scheme of compassionate appointment of the Central Coalfields Limited is governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement. Clause 9.3.3 of the said Agreement defines dependents, which reads as follows:- “9.3.3. The dependents for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. 5. The Scheme of compassionate appointment of the Central Coalfields Limited is governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement. Clause 9.3.3 of the said Agreement defines dependents, which reads as follows:- “9.3.3. The dependents for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependent of the deceased”. 6. The grand son is not covered under the definition of dependent. The claim for compassionate appointment is itself against the Constitutional provision. The Scheme should be strictly followed and there cannot be any deviation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate financial relief to the family of the bread winner as per the Scheme. The very purpose gets frustrated with the passage of time. 7. In the instant case, the employee died on 17.12.1997 and by now more than 24 years have passed and the family has survived. Further, as held earlier that the grand son is not a dependent within the definition of “Dependent” as per the National Coal Wage Agreement, to be appointed on compassionate ground. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Haryana State Electricity Board and Another-versus-Hakim Singh, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85 ”, has held that right to compassionate appointment is not heritable. In Para-12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “We are of the view that the High Court has erred in overstretching the scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears that the High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.” 9. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.” 9. Considering the aforesaid fact and in view of the fact that long 24 years have lapsed, I hold that no purpose will be served to grant any compassionate appointment as now it will only became a mode of appointment, bereft of the basic purpose of compassionate appointment. 10. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.