ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Gaurang Chauhan for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Ayaan Patel for the respondent State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following main prayers :- “8.(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on behalf of the demise of his father in the ongoing service tenure as per the resolution dated 25.4.2008 being No.PRC – 102007 – 888 – K. Annexure-”A”. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition direct the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on behalf of the demise of his father in the ongoing service tenure as per the resolution dated 25.4.2008 being No.PRC – 102007 – 888 – K. Annexure - “A”. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.Chauhan and having regard to the averments made in the petition, it would appear that the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his late father on 20.2.2010 in harness. It would appear that the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment made vide application dated 10.3.2010 had been rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 23.6.2010 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner did not pass matriculation, which was the requirement for being eligible to be appointed on Class-IV post. 4. It is now being contended that later on the petitioner had passed the said examination and the respondents now be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5. As against such submissions, learned AGP Mr.Patel would rely upon the observations of this Court in case of Mukeshbhai Haribhai Dhanani Vs. State of Gujarat vide order dated 14.12.2023 in SCA No.15774 of 2022, more particularly relying upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari in Civil Appeal No. 8842 of 2022 and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate reported in AIR 2022 (SC) 5176 . Learned AGP would submit that as such the request made by the petitioner had been rejected in the year 2010 and the petition being preferred after 13 years reflects the fact that there is no sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment, more particularly as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and whereas, learned AGP would request this Court not to grant any indulgence in the present petition. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and having regard to the observations made by this Court in case of Mukeshbhai Haribhai Dhanani (supra) since it appears that the facts could be co-relatable, paragraphs 10 to 14 are reproduced herein below for benefits :- “10. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate for the parties, the issue which arises for consideration of this Court is whether, the petitioner makes out a case for grant of compassionate appointment. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal (supra), more particularly, at paragraph no. 7 has inter alia explained with regard to rational behind the policy of compassionate appointment. Paragraphs no. 7, 7.1 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “7. 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. 7.1. 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. 7.1. 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. 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. 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. 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 idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 . When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being 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. 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. 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. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.” 7.2. 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. 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. 7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. 7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. 7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities’ decision in the matter.” 12. Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it would appear that the policy of granting compassionate appointment is to ensure that the family of the deceased employee gets some support to tide over the crisis upon the sudden death of the bread-earner of the family. The policy according to Hon’ble Supreme Court is on purely human considerations and whereas it is to ensure that one of the persons in the family of the deceased employee, is given an opportunity for gainful employment to ensure that the entire family gets some support. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also explained about “sense of immediacy” as far as issues of compassionate appointment are concerned. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if there is no sense of immediacy, then the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that where there is a long lapse of time from the date of demise of the employee and the request being for compassionate appointment then the sense of immediacy for compassionate appointment would cease to exist and would lose its significance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that the factor of delay, diluting the sense of immediacy would be a relevant circumstances which would weigh with the authorities in determining whether a case for grant of compassionate appointment was made out or not. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said consideration also would weigh with this Court more particularly as explained, an application for compassionate appointment, after a long delay, would clearly indicate that there is no sense of immediacy with the family for seeking compassionate appointment on account of sudden crisis which had occurred due to the death of bread-earned. 13. 13. It also requires to be mentioned here that the policy of compassionate appointment being treated to be a source of appointment in perpetuity, would also be one of the factors which ought to be taken into consideration. As explained hereinabove, the scheme of compassionate appointment is based on purely humanitarian considerations and whereas in case if the family of the deceased employee does not seek for compassionate appointment, immediately, and make some application, the same would have to be viewed from the angle of the family seeking an appointment on the post in perpetuity. The issue of the scheme of compassionate appointment not being one of the mode of a recruitment, has also been explained in number of judgements, At this stage observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra) at paragraph no. 7 being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 14. It would appear that in the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that the object of grant of compassionate appointment is not to give the family of a deceased employee a post. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 14. It would appear that in the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that the object of grant of compassionate appointment is not to give the family of a deceased employee a post. In the considered opinion of this Court, making of an application for grant of compassionate appointment approximately 28 years after the demise of the employee concerned and 24 years after the first rejection, would clearly point out to the fact that the petitioner, is treating the policy of compassionate appointment as a mode of recruitment and whereas the family is looking for appointment to the post held by the late employee to be appointed in perpetuity to the family. Such a request in the considered opinion of this Court should and ought not be countenanced.” 7. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as reiterated by this Court, more particularly considering that the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment had been rejected in the year 2010 and whereas the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2023, though the petitioner appears to have cleared the required qualification in the interregnum, it would not appear that there is any “sense of immediacy” insofar as grant of compassionate appointment. It would appear that the delay seeking a claim and contesting the claim dilutes the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. 8. Under such circumstances, for the reasons stated by this Court in the above referred order, the present petition does not deserve consideration and hence, the same is hereby rejected.