ORDER : 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner was not found entitled to get compassionate appointment after the death of his father. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that father of the petitioner namely Shiv Kumar Yadav was posted as Lineman Assistant Class-1 in Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, City Division, Raipur (for brevity “CSPDCL”). On 20.12.2008, father of the petitioner died in harness leaving behind the petitioner and his widow wife namely Sofia Begam. Thereafter, on 03.11.2009, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment through his mother before the Competent Authority. However, the said application was not considered as at that time, the petitioner was only aged about 14 years. Thereafter, in the year 2012, when the petitioner became major, he received a letter on 25.07.2012 to file a fresh application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his claim and the process for compassionate appointment was initiated by the respondent/Authorities. However, on 08.01.2016, the respondent/Authority rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he was minor. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. He places reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of Pushpendra Nath Sonesare Vs. State of C.G. and Anr. decided on 10.09.2018 in Writ Appeal No.537/2015 and in the matter of Smt. Kanak and Anr. Vs. State of C.G. and Anr. passed on 10.07.2020 by this High Court in WPS No.2615/2020. He submits that when an application for compassionate appointment is preferred by a person after attaining the age of majority, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. He further places reliance on the matter of Supram Prasad Vs. State of C.G., 2012 (4) CGLJ 137 and would submit that if the hardship persists in the family, the application for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and compassionate appointment can be granted. He further places reliance on the matter of Supram Prasad Vs. State of C.G., 2012 (4) CGLJ 137 and would submit that if the hardship persists in the family, the application for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and compassionate appointment can be granted. He submits that the petitioner and his widow mother have been facing hardships since the death of his father, therefore, the impugned order dated 08.01.2016 be set aside and appropriate direction may be issued to the concerned Authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5/CSPDCL opposes the prayer of the petitioner and would submit that in the Scheme of the department issued on 28.02.2004, there is no provision for relinquishment or waiving off the conditions. Learned counsel further submits that according to condition No.5 of the said Scheme, which is applicable to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have submitted the application for claim within one year from the date of death of the employee as after the said period no action would be taken on such application, however, at the relevant time, the petitioner herein was minor. Further, in the scheme of 2004 there is no provision to entertain the application of a minor after his attaining the age of majority, therefore, petitioner cannot take such benefit as per the policy of the Department. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the CSPDCL on 08.01.2016, however, the petitioner approached this Court after delay of more than 4 and a half years and this conduct itself shows that the petitioner or his mother were not facing any hardship. Not only this, the mother of the petitioner had never applied for compassionate appointment, which too goes to show that there was no distress in the family. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed in the writ petition carefully. 6. Recently in the matter of State of Bengal Vs. Debarata Tiwari and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 219 the rationality of law and policy of compassionate appointment have been explained, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs hereunder:- 30. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed in the writ petition carefully. 6. Recently in the matter of State of Bengal Vs. Debarata Tiwari and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 219 the rationality of law and policy of compassionate appointment have been explained, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs hereunder:- 30. The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain. Further, a deceased employee does not always leave behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not mean economic death for his family? The State’s obligation in this regard, confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate succour to such a family. Support for such a provision has been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India, i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. 31. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment. i. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 , this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. ii. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That 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, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome. iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 , (“Hakim Singh”) this Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession. iv. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 . When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the ideabeing not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 . In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 , wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743 , the facts before this Court were that the government employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment. vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed 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. That 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. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have been extracted as under: “41. 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 Umesh Kumar Nagpal (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. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (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 dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.” 32. 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. 35. 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. 35. 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 oted 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. 7. In the matter of Malay Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 , the observation has been made with regard to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Following was materially observed in said judgment which reads thus:- 9. 7. In the matter of Malay Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 , the observation has been made with regard to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Following was materially observed in said judgment which reads thus:- 9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., 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 and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. 8. Further, in the matter of Local Admn. Deptt. Vs. M. Selvanayagam, (2011) 13 SCC 42 , the respondent therein, on attaining the age of majority, moved an application for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he died while being in service. His petition was initially allowed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, however, Hon’ble Apex Court set-aside the said order and allowed the appeal filed by the Department observing that in case of an employee dying in harness, one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succor to the family. Following was held in paragraphs 11 to 14:- 11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. 13. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on July 2, 1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father's death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service. 14. In the facts of the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakshisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, the case of the respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments. 15. In light of the discussions made above, we find the impugned order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court unsustainable in law. It is set aside and the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.” 9. That being the position, the case of the respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments. 15. In light of the discussions made above, we find the impugned order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court unsustainable in law. It is set aside and the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.” 9. In the matter of Pushpendra Nath Sonesare Vs. State of CG in WA No.537/2015, upon which, the petitioner has placed reliance, it has been observed that no doubt, compassionate appointment is not a fundamental right, however, it is still creature of a policy. So long as the policy exists, the “dos and don'ts” will flow therefrom. It was also observed that Clause 9 (2) of the Policy mandates that the State authorities themselves have created an obligation upon the Head of Department to send a copy of the application form, which is prescribed therein alongwith the relevant guidelines to the family members of the deceased employee. If there is no eligible person capable for being appointed on compassionate ground, even then this information is required to be given to the Head of Department. However, no such exercise has been done by the State authorities, much less by the Head of Department in relation to the issue of providing compassionate appointment to eligible family member. Moreover, in the said case, no time frame has been fixed by the State Government for making application for compassionate appointment. 10. However, in the instant case, a time frame has been duly fixed by the Department in the concerned Scheme issued on 28.02.2004 by the CSPDCL for submitting the application i.e. within one year from the date of death of the deceased. In condition No.4, there is also a provision that if in any case, the compassionate appointment is not granted, the benefit would be given under the Annuity Scheme. In condition No.4, there is also a provision that if in any case, the compassionate appointment is not granted, the benefit would be given under the Annuity Scheme. Condition No.4 & 5 of the said scheme is reproduced hereunder:- ^^4- vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk u gksus ;k vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu u djus ij ;k fdlh dkj.ko'k vuqdaik fu;qfDr ugha fn;s tkus ij orZeku esa ykxw ,U;wVh ;kstuk ds rgr fuf'pr ekfld jde dh vnk;xh laca/kh ;kstuk tkjh jgsxhA 5- vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu fu/kkZfjr izi= esa e`rd deZpkjh ds fu/ku dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ ds vanj ml dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djuk gksxk] tgka e`rd deZpkjh dk;Zjr FkkA ,d o"kZ ds i'pkr izkIr vkosnuksa ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk;sxhA ------** 11. Further, no averment has been made that the mother of the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased, had applied for compassionate appointment. Neither any reason has been assigned in this regard nor any explanation has been given by counsel for the petitioner as to why she did not move an application for claim at that time. Thus, it is apparent that the conditions of the Policy of the State Government in Pushpendra Nath Sonesare (supra) relied upon by the petitioner and the conditions of Scheme of the CSPDCL are quite different, therefore, the said case law is of no help to the petitioner. 12. This Court also observes that the petitioner, after rejection of his claim by the CSPDCL, has filed this petition after 4 and a half years. In the State of Himanchal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 , it has been held that where there is a significant gap between making the application for compassionate appointment and filing a writ petition to challenge the inaction on the part of the Government, a direction to consider the application for compassionate appointment may not be issued. 13. In light of the aforesaid principles and for the reasons stated here-inabove, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition and the same also suffers from delay and laches. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.