ORDER : 1. Present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant - original petitioner against oral order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10896 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Deepak Khanchandani, learned Counsel for Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Jaineel Parikh, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the husband of the appellant late Shri Rameshbhai Prajapati was working in Assistant Teacher in Primary School at Tikhimuvadi, Tal. Fatepura, Dist. Dahod with the respondent and while he was in service he died on 8.12.2000. It is a case of the appellant in the petition that the appellant's family was informed by the respondent that one member of her family can apply for compassionate appointment, as per the policy framed by the State Government. However, the appellant widow of the deceased employee was uneducated and therefore, she informed to the concerned respondent authority by letter dated 2.1.2001 that as and when her son becomes major, he will submit an application for compassionate appointment. Learned advocate for the appellant thereafter, submitted that the son of the appellant became major on 4.12.2007 and thereafter, he submitted an application on 6.5.2010 before the respondent authority and requested to grant compassionate appointment. However, the request made by the son of the appellant came to be rejected by the respondent authority vide communication dated 16.6.2010 in which it was stated that the application submitted by the son of the appellant is filed, as the son of the appellant did not submit an application within period of three months, as per clause 8 of G.R. dated 10.3.2000, after the death of his father. Thereafter, the appellant has submitted an application to the respondent authority and requested the authority to grant lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. The said application was also rejected/filed on 10.11.2014 and therefore, the appellant on behalf of her son has filed the present petition. 4. Mr. Thereafter, the appellant has submitted an application to the respondent authority and requested the authority to grant lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. The said application was also rejected/filed on 10.11.2014 and therefore, the appellant on behalf of her son has filed the present petition. 4. Mr. Khanchandani, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the captioned petition vide impugned order mainly on the ground that there is delay in filing the petition and the son of the appellant was not entitled as per the policy framed by the State Government. The appellant has therefore, filed the present appeal. 4.1 Mr. Khanchandani, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that as per the policy of the State Government, application for compassionate appointment can be filed within two years when legal heirs of the deceased employee attains age of majority and in the present case son of the appellant submitted such application after period of about 2 years and 5 months and therefore, the respondent authority ought to have considered the said application on merits. Learned advocate for the appellant would further submit that even as per the policy framed by the State Government, the respondent authority has not followed the procedure prescribed in clause 11 of the said policy. The relatives of the deceased were not informed about the scheme of the State Government for grant of compassionate appointment and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated aforesaid relevant aspects. However, learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition mainly on the ground of delay of 4 years in filing the petition. Learned advocate for the appellant therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and respondent authority be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the appellant or in alternative, the respondent be directed to grant lumpsum compensation to the appellant, in lieu of compassionate appointment 5. On the other hand Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent has opposed this appeal. It is submitted that the respondent authority has informed the relatives of the appellant about the scheme framed by the State Government for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to which the appellant herself has submitted an application on 2.1.2001, whereby the respondent was informed that as and when the son of the appellant becomes major he will submit an application. It is submitted that the respondent authority has informed the relatives of the appellant about the scheme framed by the State Government for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to which the appellant herself has submitted an application on 2.1.2001, whereby the respondent was informed that as and when the son of the appellant becomes major he will submit an application. Thus, she was aware about the scheme of the State Government. It is further submitted that though the appellant has relied upon the clarification made by the State Government with regard to submission of the application within period of 2 years after the minor son becomes major, the appellant has not placed on record said policy/clarification. It is further submitted that surprisingly though the claim of the son of the appellant is rejected in the year 2010, the mother has filed present petition in the year 2018 and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground of delay. In view of the said facts, learned advocate for the respondent urged that this Court may not interfere with the impugned decision rendered by the learned Single Judge and present appeal be dismissed. 6. Mr. Jaineel Parikh, learned AGP has also supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and requested that this appeal be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for both the sides. We have also perused the material placed on record. It would emerge from the record that the husband of the appellant was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School and he died on 8.12.2000, while he was in service. It is a specific case of the appellant in the memo of the petition that the respondent authority informed the appellant about the scheme of compassionate appointment and also informed that one member of the family of the appellant can apply for such appointment as per the policy of the Government. The said averemnts are made in paragraph No. 3 of the memo of the petition. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the learned advocate for the appellant to contend that the respondent authority has not followed the procedure prescribed in clause 15 of G.R. dated 10.3.2000. Thus the said contention is misconceived. 8. The said averemnts are made in paragraph No. 3 of the memo of the petition. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the learned advocate for the appellant to contend that the respondent authority has not followed the procedure prescribed in clause 15 of G.R. dated 10.3.2000. Thus the said contention is misconceived. 8. It is further revealed from the record that pursuant to the information given by the respondent to the appellant, the appellant informed to the respondent authority that her son will submit an application for compassionate appointment after he attains age of majority. It is relevant to note that the said application was submitted on 2.1.2001. It further transpires from the record that the son of the appellant became major on 4.12.2007 as contended by learned advocate for the appellant, however admittedly, he submitted an application on 6.5.2010 i.e. after period of more than 2 years and 5 months. 9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that learned advocate for the appellant has argued that as per the clarification made by the State Government in the policy of 10.3.2000 that the application can be submitted within period of two years from the date on which the son/daughter of the deceased attains the age of majority. However, said policy/clarification is not placed on record and learned advocate for the appellant has fairly submitted that he has tried to search such type of clarification/policy however, no such clarification is available. Even otherwise, admittedly the son of the appellant submitted an application after period of 2 years and 5 months and therefore also the clarification upon which the reliance is placed by learned advocate would not render any assistance to the appellant in the facts of the present case. 10. It is also not in dispute that the application submitted by the son of the appellant came to be rejected on 16.6.2010 relying upon clause 8 of G.R. dated 10.3.2000. However, the son of the appellant has never challenged said decision by filing the petition and surprisingly the appellant, widow of the deceased, has filed the present petition in the year 2018 i.e. after a period of 8 years. Thus, it appears that the mother has challenged decision which was against her son by filing present petition after period of 8 years. 11. Thus, it appears that the mother has challenged decision which was against her son by filing present petition after period of 8 years. 11. Learned advocate for the appellant has alternatively urged that the respondent authority be directed to grant lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per policy dated 5.7.2011. However it is relevant to note at this stage, that though the appellant has placed reliance upon policy dated 5.7.2011, copy of the said policy is not placed on record and therefore, it is not open for the appellant to rely upon the said policy However, it is relevant to note at this stage that the appellant has placed on record the communication dated 10.11.2014 addressed by one of the respondents to other respondents wherein it is stated that the son of the appellant is not entitled to get benefit of the policy dated 5.7.2011, as the case of the son of the appellant was rejected by the authority, much prior to framing of the said policy and his application was not pending when the policy dated 5.7.2011 came to be framed by the respondent Government. 12. Thus, from the said communication also it is revealed that the son of the appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as prayed for by the appellant. Even otherwise, the said claim was rejected in the year 2014 and as observed by learned Single Judge the petition has been filed by the appellant on behalf of her son in the 2018 i.e. after period of 4 years. 13. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4395 of 2019, the learned Single Judge has observed that in the peculiar facts of the said case, direction was given to the respondent authority to grant lumpsum compensation as per G.R. dated 5.7.2011. The facts of the present case are totally different and even the case of the appellant is not covered under the G.R. dated 5.7.2011 and therefore, the aforesaid decision would not be applicable in present case. 14. In the decision in case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 CC 65, Honorable Supreme Court has discussed about object of policy for compassionate appointment and observed in paragraph Nos. 14. In the decision in case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 CC 65, Honorable Supreme Court has discussed about object of policy for compassionate appointment and observed in paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 35 to 37 as under: “18. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependents of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependent member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependent member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State. 19. The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18 January 1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance to dependents of government servants who have died while in service, “leaving their families in indigent circumstances”. The Policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence. The Policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate means of subsistence. The policy recognizes in Paragraph 10 that the benefits which are received by a family on account of welfare measures are required to be considered. Among them, the policy stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to be taken into account in assessing the financial circumstances of the family. The Policy does not preclude the dependents of a deceased employee from being considered for compassionate appointment merely because they are in receipt of family pension. What the Policy mandates is that the receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account. Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy sets out the measures provided by the State which have a bearing on the financial need of the family. 20. In view of the clear terms of the Policy, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the Government to disregard its Policy. Such direction could not have been issued by the High Court. The High Court has drawn sustenance in issuing mandamus in the above terms on a decision of this Court in Gov ind Preshrank Verna (supra). That was a case of compassionate appointment where in the course of the proceedings before the High Court, a learned Single Judge had directed the Life Insurance Corporation, which was the employer of the deceased employee, to make an inquiry and submit a report on whether the members of the family engaged in gainful employment were also supporting the family of the deceased employee. This Court, in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court rejecting the petition for compassionate appointment, observed that the officer who had inquired into the matter in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge completely omitted to furnish any report on the points which were required by the High Court to be investigated. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that the family was in receipt of family pension and other amounts towards terminal benefits. The High Court rejected the petition on the ground that the family was in receipt of family pension and other amounts towards terminal benefits. Reversing the view of the High Court, a two- Judge Bench of this Court held thus: “6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules...” 35. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Mesh Kumar Nag pal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependent in seeking compassionate appointment. 36. We are not impressed with the submission that delay should not be taken into account since Paragraph 8 of the Scheme contemplates that in a situation where all the dependent children of the deceased employee have yet to attain the age of majority, the time limit for submission of an application is extended until the first of the children attains the age of twenty one years. A case where each of the children is a minor falls in a different class altogether. This cannot be equated with a situation where a dependent of a deceased employee who was a major on the date of death fails to submit an application within a reasonable period of time from the death of the employee. This aspect of delay has been dealt with in other decisions of this Court, including State of J&K vs. Salad Ahmed Mir and Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvage. 37. This aspect of delay has been dealt with in other decisions of this Court, including State of J&K vs. Salad Ahmed Mir and Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvage. 37. We see no reason or purpose in now directing the State to reconsider its decision in the case of the respondent which would only result in another round of fruitless litigation. In our view, the respondent is debarred from seeking compassionate appointment by the delay as well as by the lapse of time which has taken place.” 15. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner and therefore, no interference is required. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, present appeal does not deserve to be entertained and the same is required to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, present appeal is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. Connected Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.