JUDGMENT : Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel For the Petitioner. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the communication dated 06.10.2021 (Annex.6) and for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on suitable post. 3. Briefly, the facts noted in the present case are that the petitioner is an adopted son of Shri Vijay Singh, who was the permanent employee of the respondent-Corporation. Shri Vijay Singh while working on the post of Driver, expired on 30.06.1984. After the death of Shri Vijay Singh, his wife adopted the petitioner in the year, 2006. After adoption, an application was moved by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds before the respondents. The respondents after considering the case of the petitioner, rejected the application so preferred vide order dated 06.10.2021. Aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner being the adopted son of the deceased employee of the respondent-Corporation is entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of Shri Vijay Singh. Learned counsel submits that the rejection of the application so preferred by the petitioner is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. He prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case along with the impugned order dated 06.10.2021 (Annex.6). 6. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner was adopted by wife of Shri Vijay Singh in the year, 2006. It is also not in dispute that Shri Vijay Singh, who was serving as Driver in the respondent department, expired in the year 1984. The application preferred by the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been made in the year, 2021. This Court is firmly of the view that grant of compassionate appointment is with a purpose to relieve the family from the destitution and to tide over the situation of crisis on account of untimely death of a bread earner. In the present case, if the family has survived for more than 39 years, then it cannot be said that there was immediate crisis in the family on account of death of Shri Vijay Singh. 7. In the present case, if the family has survived for more than 39 years, then it cannot be said that there was immediate crisis in the family on account of death of Shri Vijay Singh. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule and, therefore, the same cannot be granted as a matter of right. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 219 has held as under:- "7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source. 7.5. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source. 7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. " 9. This Court is not inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction for giving a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after a delay of 39 years. 10. The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of any force and the same is dismissed.