ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a suitable writ, order or direction: (a) that the respondents may be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the suitable post. (b) Any other appropriate, writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble court thinks fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (c) award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner’s father-Narayan Singh, who was working on the post of Constable, Fourth Battalion, RAC, Sri Ganganagar, expired while in service on 30.04.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner on attaining the age of majority filed an application for compassionate appointment on count of death of his father, while in service. The respondents sent the communication dated 12.01.1999 and asking the petitioner to submit the requisite documents. The respondents vide communication dated 24.08.1999 rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of the limitation. 2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s case for grant of compassionate appointment. The respondents vide communication dated 26.06.2015 again asked the petitioner to submit fresh application alongwith requisite documents. The respondents also directed the petitioner to appear for police verification vide communication dated 27.07.2015. 2.2. Thereafter, the respondents vide communication dated 21.11.2016 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there was no reason available for relaxing the period for submission of the application seeking compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s mother sent a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 08.05.2017 in that regard, and the petitioner also sent a notice in the matter of compassionate appointment to the authority concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at an earlier point of time, the then State Government granted relaxation to similarly situated candidates in regard to condition of submitting the application for compassionate ground to the extent of three months, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in the present case is violative of the Constitution of India. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at an earlier point of time, the then State Government granted relaxation to similarly situated candidates in regard to condition of submitting the application for compassionate ground to the extent of three months, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in the present case is violative of the Constitution of India. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that there is an exception in Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’), which provides for grant of relaxation in an exceptional case; in the present case, the petitioner family facing the financial hardship on count of sudden demise of the sole bread earner, thus warrants positive consideration of the petitioner’s application seeking compassionate ground. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits the amendment notification dated 19.04.1999 on the subject matter was issued, which provides that as per Sub-Rule 3 of the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 in case the husband or wife of the deceased does not want compassionate appointment for himself/herself and out of remaining dependants, the eldest child had not attained the age of 18 years, then an information to this effect shall be submitted to the Head of the Office/Department within three months from the date of death of a government servant, and thereafter, the period of three months for submission of the application for compassionate appointment shall commence from the date of acquiring of 18 years of age by the eldest child of dependants. 4.1. It was further submitted that in the present case, the mother (wife of the deceased) of the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment in the year 1999 for her son (petitioner) after a huge delay of 15 years from the death of the petitioner’s father, and therefore, the petitioner’s application was rightly rejected on 13.08.1999. 4.2. 4.1. It was further submitted that in the present case, the mother (wife of the deceased) of the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment in the year 1999 for her son (petitioner) after a huge delay of 15 years from the death of the petitioner’s father, and therefore, the petitioner’s application was rightly rejected on 13.08.1999. 4.2. It was also submitted that the representation of the petitioner’s mother submitted in the year 2017 was sent to the State Government for fresh consideration for the appointment in question but the same was returned, because of huge and inordinate delay of 31 years 2 months 13 days without any cogent and justifiable reason, and therefore, the application for compassionate appointment in question cannot be considered at this stage. 4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Nisha Jaipal Vs Union of India (D.B.C.W.P. No. 18354/2022, decided on 01.08.2023), and Smt. Parwati Devi Vs. Director, (G) & Nodal Officer (PG), Ministry of Mines, Geology Survey of India (D.B.C.W.P. No. 12808/2021, decided on 08.02.2022) passed by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner’s father-Narayan Singh, while working on the post of Constable, expired on 30.04.1984, whereafter the petitioner after attaining the age of majority filed an application for compassionate appointment before the respondents and the respondents asked the petitioner to submit requisite documents. The respondents vide communication dated 24.08.1999 rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of limitation. In the year 2015, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents for fresh consideration, whereupon the respondents again asked the petitioner to submit fresh application alongwith requisite documents. The respondents also directed the petitioner to appear for police verification. Thereafter, the respondents vide communication dated 21.11.2016 rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. In the year 2015, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents for fresh consideration, whereupon the respondents again asked the petitioner to submit fresh application alongwith requisite documents. The respondents also directed the petitioner to appear for police verification. Thereafter, the respondents vide communication dated 21.11.2016 rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Smt. Parwati Devi (Supra), as hereunder:- From a bare perusal of the pleadings and documents available on record, it is clear that the deceased-employee expired on 19.05.2003 and the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment was rejected twice on 05/12.04.2005 and 13.06.2006. The petitioners kept mum for ten years and after a lapse of ten years, they submitted similar representation in the year 2016 to the concerned authorities for revival of their claim for compassionate appointment, which was again rejected by the respondents on 12.09.2016. It is not in dispute that the earlier orders dated 05/12.04.2005 and 13.06.2006 have not been challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal, which have attained finality. Looking to the material available on the record, and after applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred in foregoing paras, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions put forward by the counsel for the petitioners, do not carry any merit, as the subsequent representations were made after a decade. Thus, this Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is without any substance and accordingly stands dismissed. 8. This Court further observes that the above-quoted judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench after considering the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue in question alongwith the settled proposition of law on the subject matter. 9. This Court also observes that the father of the petitioner expired in the year 1984 and thereafter the application for compassionate appointment was submitted in the year 1999 after an inordinate delay of 15 years. 9. This Court also observes that the father of the petitioner expired in the year 1984 and thereafter the application for compassionate appointment was submitted in the year 1999 after an inordinate delay of 15 years. This Court further observes that the petitioner filed a representation, followed by another application in the year 2015-16, and therefore, it is clear that the neither the petitioner nor his mother submitted any application for compassionate appointment within the time limit so prescribed, but such an application was submitted after an inordinate and unexplained delay. 10. This Court in the present factual matrix, though has sympathy for the petitioner and his family under bereavement, but in view of the law settled on the subject matter, the relief prayed for by the petitioner herein cannot be granted at this belated stage. 11. This Court also observes that the petitioner and his family, after the death of the sole breadwinner i.e. his father, were entitled for the Compassionate Appointment as per the Rules of 1996, but within the prescribed time-frame, whereas in the present case, the necessary application was filed after a huge, inordinate and unexplained delay, and therefore, the appointment in question is not permissible under the law. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the afore-quoted precedent law as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.