ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: “(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction by quashing the order dated 27.06.2008 and further direct the respondents to issue compassionate appointment and appoint the petitioner in the establishment, to meet the ends of justice. (iii) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner's father namely Shrawan Kumar Sinha died in harness on 20.07.1999, while working on the post of Lineman-Assistant-II (Line) with the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, posted at Dhamtari. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment, which remain pending consideration, meanwhile, new State of Chhattisgarh came to be carved out w.e.f. 01.11.2000 and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short CSEB) came to be constituted w.e.f. 15.11.2000. Upon constitution of new Electricity Board in Chhattisgarh, the MPEB sent back the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment to newly constituted board/respondent No.1, thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application and remind the respondents that his application is pending on dated 28.5.2001, thereafter, his application has been decided and rejected vide order No. 01-04/PD-3/3064, Raipur, dated 27.6.2008 by the respondent no.2 by stating inter alia that Govt. of Chhattisgarh/Board has taken a policy decision that preference will be given to those dependent members whose bread earner died on or after 15.11.2000, and since the petitioner's father died on 20.07.1999 i.e. prior to 15.11.2000, therefore, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. of Chhattisgarh/Board has taken a policy decision that preference will be given to those dependent members whose bread earner died on or after 15.11.2000, and since the petitioner's father died on 20.07.1999 i.e. prior to 15.11.2000, therefore, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. In between this Court passed an order on 06.07.2006 in WP No. 1736 of 2004 (Sanjay Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh) and directed for consideration of application for compassionate appointment of similarly situated person in accordance with policy of 1997 as prevalent, against which respondent No.1/CSEB had filed SLP(C) No.19197 of 2006 (Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Sanjay Yadav & Others) which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.08.2014, directing the respondent No.1-CSEB to consider the case of the dependents of the deceased within three months, the petitioner's case being similar to that of Sanjay Yadav (Supra) duly affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) filed by the respondent No.1-CSEB, an appropriate writ(s) be issued for consideration of the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy of 1997 on the principle of parity. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner again made an application i.e. second application for compassionate appointment on dated 07.11.2014 along with documents required. In between this Hon'ble Court passed an order on 26.02.2015 in WP No. 4880 of 2004 (Amrit Lal Paw v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Others) and directed for consideration of application for compassionate appointment of similarly situated person in accordance with policy of 1997 as prevalent, against which respondent No.1/CSEB had filed SLP(C) No. 19197 of 2006 (Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Sanjay Yadav & Others) which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.08.2014 directing the respondent No.1-CSEB to consider the case of the dependents of the deceased within three months, the petitioner's case being similar to that of Sanjay Yadav (Supra) duly affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) filed by the respondent No.1-CSEB, an appropriate writ(s) be issued for consideration of the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy of 1997 on the principle of parity. 5. Thereafter, the respondents demanded several documents from the petitioner vide memo No. 10- 22/estb/15/1723, Dhamtari, dated 30.06.2015. The petitioner has been submitted the entire document's required by the respondents on 20.07.2015 along with an application. 5. Thereafter, the respondents demanded several documents from the petitioner vide memo No. 10- 22/estb/15/1723, Dhamtari, dated 30.06.2015. The petitioner has been submitted the entire document's required by the respondents on 20.07.2015 along with an application. It was the duty of the respondents to issue compassionate appointment order at the earliest so that the very object of the compassionate appointment can be achieve but in this case, the appointment order has not been issued to the petitioner and he is compelled to run from one place to another place. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the facts that similar situated person have been granted compassionate appointment according to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, therefore this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per the law. Hence this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities acted in arbitrary manner and in gross violation of the instructions/guidelines/circulars made there under for the compassionate appointment in accordance with policy of 1997 and as per those circulars the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in the establishment. The petitioner's father working in erstwhile MPEB Bilaspur died on 09.10.1998 and after the formation of CSEB on 15.11.2000, his application was transferred by MPEB to respondent No.1 for consideration. Thus, the case of the petitioner is identical with Sanjay Yadav (supra) which has been decided by this Court on 06.07.2006 and against which SLP(C) filed by the respondent No.1/Board has already been dismissed and it has been clearly held by this Court that dependent of the deceased employee are entitled to be considered in the light of existing policy of 1997 (30.01.1997). As the petitioner's father while working with MPEB/respondent No.2 and in the territorial jurisdiction of newly created CSEB prior to its constitution i.e. 15.11.2000 died in harness on 09.10.1998, the present petitioner is also entitled to be considered for his compassionate appointment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in WP No. 4880/2004 (Amrit Lal Paw v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & others) decided on 26.02.2015 and WPS No. 1736/2004 (Sanjay yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh), decided on 06.07.2006. 8. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in WP No. 4880/2004 (Amrit Lal Paw v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & others) decided on 26.02.2015 and WPS No. 1736/2004 (Sanjay yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh), decided on 06.07.2006. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that after the death of his father, the petitioner had filed an application on 31.08.1999 (Annexure P/2) for compassionate appointment. The said application was considered and rejected by the respondents by order dated 27.06.2008. The petitioner did not challenge the said order in time. The petitioner has been sleeping over the matter and allowed the said order to attain finality and suddenly after 8 years, he is challenging the said order by this petition. The claim of the petitioner suffers from inordinate delay and laches and is therefore not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner did not explain as to how his case is similar to the case of others in the said application. Since the order rejecting his application has attained finality, no cause of action survives for the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court for want of satisfactory explanation. The petitioner and his family could survive for about 17 years without the assistance of compassionate appointment. The very object of granting compassionate appointment to one member of the family of the deceased employee is to reach immediate financial help. This object will be defeated if the petitioner's application has to be considered after such a long distance of time, therefore, this petition is also liable to be rejected. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & others” reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 343/2019 (Vijay Kumar Vastrakar v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & others) dated 04.10.2019 and the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2127/2016 (T. Mutthuraja v. The Managing Director & another) decided on 15.06.2016. 10. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 11. It is an admitted position that petitioner's father was died on 20.07.1999 and the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was dismissed by the respondent authorities on 27.06.2008 and the petitioner filed this petition in the month of November, 2016. Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the case of “Debabrata Tiwari” (supra) observed in para 16.5 as under: “16.5. In fine, the present appeals succeed on two counts: first, there was no policy existing to govern compassionate appointment to posts under local authorities in the State of West Bengal and hence, in the absence of such a policy, compassionate appointment cannot be granted; second, assuming that there was such a policy, it would be of no redeeming purpose to direct that the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds be considered and decided several years after they were filed.” 12. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the matter in the case of “Vijay Kumar Vastrakar” (supra) in para No. 9 to 11 observed as under: “9. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the regular mode of appointment and it cannot be prayed for as a matter of right. The exception on which compassionate appointment is sustained is for the reason that it seeks to tide over the sudden crisis in the family of deceased breadwinner. The object being to enable the family to get over financial crisis which it faces immediately after the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Long delay in moving the Court in the matter of compassionate appointment by itself would be sufficient to disentitle the person from seeking a direction for appointment on compassionate ground. On the aspect of delay in applying for compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court has consistently held that delay in applying for compassionate assistance cannot be condoned, as it would be introducing a concept of condonation of delay, which is otherwise not provided in the scheme of compassionate appointment. In this context, it is worthwhile to extract few decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of State of UP v. Paras Nath, reported in 1998 (2) SCC 412 , the Supreme Court has held that: “5. In this context, it is worthwhile to extract few decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of State of UP v. Paras Nath, reported in 1998 (2) SCC 412 , the Supreme Court has held that: “5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case. 6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed: "The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family." In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 246, the Supreme Court has observed that: “7. As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family. The High Court did not consider the position of law and allowed the writ petition relying on an earlier decision of the High Court.” In a subsequent decision in the matter of State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511 , while dealing with the effect of long delay in applying for compassionate appointment, the Apex Court has observed as under: "11. ... The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. ... The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the Scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit.” 10. In the matter of Punjab National Bank & ors v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265 , has observed as under:- "4........It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis." In the matter of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of UP & ors reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the identical issue has held as under:- “.......The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that is faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service. In the present case, the father of the appellant became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family could survive and successfully faced and overcame the financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member. That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction.......” 11. The principles enunciated in the above said judgements would make it clear that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time, in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed after a lapse of time as the delay in making a claim for compassionate grounds appointment dilutes the case of immediate financial penury and consequently negates the entitlement for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the case at hand, admittedly, the family of deceased employee has survived for a considerable long period i.e. from 1999 to 2017, without a job on compassionate ground and this fact itself shows that the family members of deceased employee have the necessary wherewithal to survive, notwithstanding with sudden departure of the earning member of the family. If the family is able to survive for long years, the factual inference is to be drawn that the penurious circumstances did not exist. A compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succour to the family of deceased employee. Thus, the delay in approaching the Court has defeated the very object of claim for compassionate appointment as the purpose of compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden crises, with which the family members of deceased employee were facing due to sudden death of the father of appellant herein on 26. 12.1999. Thus, even on merits, we find no reason, to interfere with the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting claim of appellant for compassionate appointment.” 13. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Petitioner was aged about 39 years at the time of filing this petition. His father was died on 20.07.1999. His application for compassionate appointment was dismissed by the respondent authorities on 27.06.2008. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Petitioner was aged about 39 years at the time of filing this petition. His father was died on 20.07.1999. His application for compassionate appointment was dismissed by the respondent authorities on 27.06.2008. The delay in approaching the Court has defeated the very object of claim for compassionate appointment, as the purpose of compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden crises, with which the family members of the deceased employee were facing, due to sudden death of the bread earlier of the family. 14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as also by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the instant petition is without any merit and therefore, same is liable to be and hereby dismissed.