ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed for compassionate appointment and also to set aside the impugned orders/letters dated 5.1.2011, 17.1.2011 & 10.4.2012. 2. Father of the petitioner namely Lambadi Malaiya was posted as Peon under the respondent No.1/department, who died in harness on 26th October, 2006. The petitioner had filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.11.2006 along with relevant documents. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 5.1.2007 forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for necessary action. As the post was not vacant in respondent No.1/department, respondent No.3 obtained consent of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and thereafter respondent No.3 again sent the case of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for necessary action. Respondent No.2 wrote a letter to respondent No,.6 on 4.2.2008 for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under the Janpad Panchayat Bhopalpattnam, but all such correspondences went in vain. Thereafter, the Collector, vide letter dated 5.1.2011 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his application was not forwarded by his parent department for compassionate appointment within limitation and as per the policy, the application was time barred, as it has been received after more than 3 years. The same was communicated to the petitioner vide letters dated 17.1.2011 (Annexure-P/9) & 20.1.2012 (Annexure-P/10). Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment well within limitation on 24.11.2006 and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. Neither the petitioner nor any other family members has been gainfully employed and they are facing acute financial crisis to earn their livelihood after the death of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the department itself has not forwarded the application of the petitioner well within time and the application has not been decided by the competent authority as per the policy. Therefore, learned counsel prays to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that in the absence of vacant post, a candidate is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. He submits that the said issue directly came before this Court in WPS No.627/2012 (Smt. Vimla Diwan & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided on 23.11.2015). 5. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that in the absence of vacant post, a candidate is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. He submits that the said issue directly came before this Court in WPS No.627/2012 (Smt. Vimla Diwan & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided on 23.11.2015). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 6. In the matter of Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 468 , the Supreme Court directed for creation of supernumerary post in absence of any vacant post by observing in paragraph 9 as under: - “9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 7. Similarly, in the matter of Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560 , the Supreme Court has said that in absence of vacancy, grant of appointment would be misuse of public funds which is totally unauthorized, by observing as under : “In the absence of a vacancy it is not open to the Corporation to appoint a person to any post. It will be a gross abuse of the powers of a public authority to appoint persons when vacancies are not available. If persons are so appointed and paid salaries, it will be a mere misuse of public funds, which is totally unauthorized. Normally, even if the Tribunal finds that a person is qualified to be appointed to a post under the kith and kin policy, the Tribunal should only give a direction to the appropriate authority to consider the case of the particular applicant, in the light of the relevant rules and subject to the availability of the post.” 8. Normally, even if the Tribunal finds that a person is qualified to be appointed to a post under the kith and kin policy, the Tribunal should only give a direction to the appropriate authority to consider the case of the particular applicant, in the light of the relevant rules and subject to the availability of the post.” 8. Likewise, in a decision in the matter of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394 , the Supreme Court has again distinguished the view taken in Smt. Sushma Gosain (supra) and reiterated the view taken in Himachal Road Transport (supra) by holding as under in paragraphs six and seven: “6. ...........In other words, an appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only if a vacancy is available..........” 7. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) it has been indicated that the decision of Sushma Gosain (supra) has been misinterpreted to the point of distortion and that the decision does not justify compassionate appointment as a matter of course. The observations on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge in Sushma Gosain (supra) have to be read in the light of the facts of that particular case.” 9. Subsequently, in the matter of Indian Bank v. K. Usha and another, (1998) 2 SCC 663 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the Court cannot direct by writ of mandamus to create vacancy, by observing as under in para 17 : “17. Now remains the consideration of the third contention. Learned counsel for the appellant were right when they contended that if the scheme for granting compassionate appointments as per the rules and regulations of the employer concerned expressly provides that such appointments can be granted to the heirs of its deceased employees dying in harness only if vacancies exist for absorbing them, then the compassionate appointments could be granted only against such vacancies and the Court cannot direct, by mandamus, to create vacancies for that purpose if there are none. In this connection they rightly invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai (Smt.) [ (1996) 6 SCC 394 ].” 10. In this connection they rightly invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai (Smt.) [ (1996) 6 SCC 394 ].” 10. Similar is the position in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das and others, (2008) 15 SCC 560 in which it has been held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it must be confined to the post which has fallen vacant, and observed as under: - “This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant.” 11. Recently in the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, it has been categorically observed 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 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. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case 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. The principles for grant of compassionate appointment have been summarized at paras-32 to 35, which read thus:- “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. 33. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 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 noted by this Court in Hakim Singh[ (1997) 8 SCC 85 ] 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.” 12. In the case at hand, father of the petitioner died on 26th October, 2006 and more than 17 years have elapsed and one of the reasons assigned by the respondents was that at the relevant time no vacancy was available. 13. Considering the ratio laid down in the matter of Vimla Diwan, referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment in the absence of any vacant post and no writ of mandamus can be issued for the reason that as per the policy, within a period of 3 years, compassionate appointment should be provided only against regular vacant post. 14. 14. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders refusing compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of unavailability of the vacant post. 15. The Writ Petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, all other pending applications also stand disposed of.