ORDER : (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) I.A. No. 11985 of 2019 The appellant has filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 399 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 399 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. I.A. No. 11985 of 2019 is, accordingly, allowed. LPA No. 914 of 2019 4. The appellant has challenged the order dated 28th September 2018 passed in WP(S) No. 3950 of 2005. 5. By the aforesaid order, the writ Court has dismissed the challenge laid by the appellant to the order dated 11th March 2005 by which his application for compassionate appointment has been declined. 6. Briefly stated, father of the petitioner who was a permanent employee and working as Horticulture Supervisor at Bhawnathpur in the district of Garhwa died in harness on 19th December 1997, leaving behind five dependents including the petitioner. The appellant came to this Court in CWJC No. 4389 of 2000 for a direction upon the Steel Authority of India Limited (in short, SAIL) for compassionate appointment which was disposed of by an order dated 08th January 2003 in the following terms: “The facts of the case is quite similar to the facts of the case relied upon. Consequently, this writ is allowed at the stage of admission itself and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and to pass a reasoned order. It is also made clear that if unnecessary delay is made and the order is not passed within the stipulated time then the respondents will be liable to pay some cost.” 7. In compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by the writ Court, order dated 11th March 2005 has been passed by the Deputy General Manager, SAIL declining compassionate appointment to the appellant. 8. As notice above, the order dated 11th March 2005 was challenged by the appellant in WP(S) No. 3950 of 2005 which has been dismissed in the following terms: “11. 8. As notice above, the order dated 11th March 2005 was challenged by the appellant in WP(S) No. 3950 of 2005 which has been dismissed in the following terms: “11. The purpose of giving employment under the provision of compassionate employment is always subject to availability of post and is to give immediate assistance to the deceased family being the bread earner of the family and the decision to provide employment would always be subject to the financial status of the company. In the meantime, more than two decades have elapsed from the date of death of the deceased employee in harness in the year 1997 and the family of the deceased employee have availed all the possible terminal benefits from the respondent company, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground at this distance of time cannot be acceded to in view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs. 12. This Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.03.2005, at Annexure-6 to the writ application, which warrants no interference by this Court.” 9. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the order dated 11th March 2005 the Deputy General Manager has suppressed several vital facts, inasmuch as, 51 persons were appointed on compassionate ground but application of the appellant has been declined on the ground that there was no vacancy available. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the orders passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 4169 of 2008 and WP(S) No. 4170 of 2008 to submit that the SAIL has adopted a discriminatory approach against the appellant by declining him compassionate appointment on similar facts. 10. As is borne from the records of this case, the family of the appellant has been provided benefits under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme and the post-retiral benefits including provident fund, gratuity, life cover scheme, leave encashment etc. amounting to Rs. 4,70,407/- has been paid by the SAIL. In the order dated 11th March 2005, the Deputy General Manager has made a reference of the payments made to the family of the appellant which was receiving Rs. 8,814/- per month at that time. amounting to Rs. 4,70,407/- has been paid by the SAIL. In the order dated 11th March 2005, the Deputy General Manager has made a reference of the payments made to the family of the appellant which was receiving Rs. 8,814/- per month at that time. It has also been brought on record that the post-retiral benefits payable to the father of the appellant were calculated till 30th June 2006 which was the date on which he would have attained the age of superannuation in the natural course. 11. Any scheme for compassionate appointment is formulated by the employer to offer immediate sustenance to the family in distress and that seems to be the reason that a period of 3 to 5 years has been provided for making an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 12. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana” (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “2……The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 13. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated that any appointment on compassionate ground must be made within the four corners of the scheme. In “State of M.P. v. Ashish Awasthi” (2022) 2 SCC 157 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “5. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. 6. In Indian Bank v. Promila, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas. It is required to be noted that in Amit Shrivas the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 14. By now it is well accepted that in the matters of compassionate appointment the dependent of the deceased employee cannot claim any vested right and all that has to be seen is whether or not a fair treatment has been given by the employer to the dependent of a deceased employee. By now it is well accepted that in the matters of compassionate appointment the dependent of the deceased employee cannot claim any vested right and all that has to be seen is whether or not a fair treatment has been given by the employer to the dependent of a deceased employee. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that number of appointments were made by the SAIL on compassionate ground but, at the same time, we find that in the order dated 11th March 2005 the Deputy General Manager has recorded that there is excess manpower at Bhawnathpur Limestone Mines. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this statement seems to be incorrect. If that is so, the writ petition itself was not maintainable being involving a disputed question of fact. 15. Now quarter a century has passed since the father of the appellant died in harness. In our opinion, it would be improper for the Court to issue a direction to the SAIL to offer compassionate appointment to the appellant. In this regard, we may reproduce the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299, which read as under: “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a signficant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 16. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a signficant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 16. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that plea of discrimination raised by the appellant cannot be accepted – such plea must necessarily depend on facts of the case. 17. The aforesaid being the state of affairs, we are not inclined to interfere with the writ Court's order and, accordingly, LPA No. 914 of 2019 is dismissed.