JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Purohit, J.) : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the order dated 23.01.2019, annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.1, whereby the application of petitioner’s mother-Smt. Rajkumari Yadav for seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been rejected and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner was working as Mali in the regular establishment with the respondents-ONGC. He expired unfortunately on 19.04.1989 leaving behind petitioner and his widow-Smt. Rajkumari Yadav. Petitioner’s mother moved an application on 06.12.1989 seeking compassionate appointment. The respondent-ONGC at the relevant time was governed by the Employment Assistance Scheme dated 20.07.1987, annexed as Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit. According to Clause 2.1, a lump sum consideration would be paid to the spouse or dependent of the deceased employee and according to Clause 2.2, if above assistance has been given or received by the dependent or spouse of the deceased employee, the respondent-ONGC would be absolved of any obligation to provide employment on compassionate ground to the spouse or dependent of the deceased employee under the aforesaid Scheme. 4. Clauses 2 to 2.2 of the Employment Assistance Scheme are quoted hereunder:- “2. Assistance: In the event of death during service in the Commission or permanent total disability while on duty in service of the Commission, the Commission may, for rehabilitation of the family of such employee, who leaves his family in Indigency and acute financial distress, make a lump sum payment to the following assistance :- Category of Employees Admissibility of lump sum amount on the basis of number of years of service left to be rendered in the Commission by deceased employee and where employment is not provided to the dependent. Below 10 years From 10 years to 20 Years Above 20 years Class IV 30,000/- 25,000/- 20,000/- Class III 45,000/- 37000/- 30,000/- E.O. 60,000/- 50,000/- 45,000/- E.1 to E.4 90,000/- 70,000/- 55,000/- E.5 & above 1,20,000/- 1,00,000/- 80,000/- 2.1. The lump sum consideration shall be decided at the head-quarters of the Commission. The Lump sum payment would be made by the Finance & Accounts Officer, who was normally disbursing pay and allowances to the deceased employee during his life time. 2.2. The lump sum consideration shall be decided at the head-quarters of the Commission. The Lump sum payment would be made by the Finance & Accounts Officer, who was normally disbursing pay and allowances to the deceased employee during his life time. 2.2. The above assistance will also completely absolve the Commission of any obligation to provide employment on compassionate grounds to the spouse or dependent of the employee, under the existing scheme.” 5. There is no dispute to this fact that owing to the death of employee of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner (spouse) has accepted the amount of Rs.20,000/- as admissible to the deceased employee as per the chart annexed in Clause 2 of the aforesaid Scheme. Accordingly, all obligations of the respondent-ONGC for giving compassionate appointment have come to an end by accepting that amount by the spouse of the deceased employee. 6. According to the petitioner, mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 28.12.2018 to the respondent through Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India to give compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased employee in place of his spouse-Rajkumari Yadav. 7. It transpires that perhaps that application for seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner reached to the office of the respondent-ONGC and the respondent-ONGC vide order dated 23.01.2019 rejected that application. The reasons which have been assigned in the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner moved through her mother was that the spouse of the deceased employee had already received one time lump sum settlement amount in the year 1990, therefore, according to that Scheme, petitioner’s mother has no longer any claim for getting compassionate appointment under the Scheme as it is reflected from Clause 2 of the Scheme as quoted hereinabove. 8. It is feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2020. 9. 8. It is feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2020. 9. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-ONGC, wherein on the strength of the Scheme, annexed as Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit, it has been stated that respondent has no obligation for giving any compassionate appointment either to the petitioner or to the dependent of the deceased employee for the reason that one time lump sum payment i.e. Rs.20,000/- has already been received by the wife/spouse of the deceased employee on 20.12.1990, therefore, there is no obligation on the respondent to give employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. Apart from that, it has also been stated by the respondents-ONGC in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the father of the petitioner had not completed 10 years service with the respondent-ONGC as per Clause 3(a) of the aforesaid Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground. It is further stated in para 10 of the counter affidavit that this petition has been moved by the petitioner with an inordinate delay of around 30 years after the death of the deceased employee of the respondent-ONGC. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that apart from Rs.20,000/-, the family of the deceased was given the other benefits i.e. Benefit under Benevolent Fund, CPF Amount after adjusting the outstanding advance and Group Insurance amounting Rs.7,36,439/- approx. 10. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner wherein petitioner has admitted the receipt of Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation for the death of deceased employee of the respondent-ONGC. However, it has also been pleaded that merely by paying an amount of Rs.20,000/-, the financial hardship has not been tide over. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since at the time of the death of father of the petitioner, petitioner was about 05 years old, therefore, mother of the petitioner-Rajkumari has made a representation dated 14.12.1989 for the employment and submitted documents related to her qualification, but she was never offered the appointment. He further submits that on 24.05.2018, the mother of the petitioner made a representation in which she has attached the information received by the petitioner in regard to the numbers of candidates who were working against Class III and Class IV posts in the respondent-Department. 12. He further submits that on 24.05.2018, the mother of the petitioner made a representation in which she has attached the information received by the petitioner in regard to the numbers of candidates who were working against Class III and Class IV posts in the respondent-Department. 12. From perusal of the pleadings between the parties, one point is very clear that once the mother of the petitioner accepted the lump sum compensation as per the Scheme prevalent at that time, the mother of the petitioner being spouse or the dependent of the deceased employee had lost their right to get compassionate appointment. Even the writ petition has been moved by the petitioner after a period of 30 years from the date of death of the employee of the respondent and for that reason also, the petition is highly belated and suffers from laches. The Scheme in no uncertain terms speaks that if a lump sum payment is received by the spouse or dependent of the deceased employee, the respondent-ONGC has no obligation towards the grant of compassionate appointment to spouse or dependent of the deceased employee. 13. Since there is admission on the part of the petitioner that his mother has received Rs.20,000/- as lump sum amount as compensation from the respondent, therefore, she lost her right for moving any application for compassionate appointment, therefore, neither she nor his son can move any such application and that too, at this belated stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. 15. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.