JUDGMENT Heard Sri. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Arvind Goswami, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri. A.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India-respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, in Original Application No.330/00897 of 2019 (Shiv Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and another) ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 passed by Commandant O.D. Fort, Allahabad" 3. At the very outset, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by Commandant O.D. Fort, Allahabad was never challenged before the learned Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 has submitted that the impugned order 13.02.2017 was highlighted before the learned Tribunal and this fact was also noticed by the learned Tribunal that the said order was not challenged by the petitioner in the original application filed before the learned Tribunal. 5. We have gone through the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 and find that this is not rejection order, on the contrary, the impugned order seeks certain information from the petitioner, which was passed pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No.1362 of 2016 on 06.12.2016 whereby the respondents were directed to pass afresh speaking order. In this order, again clarification was sought from the petitioner so that the matter may be finally disposed of and this order was admittedly communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, preliminary objection is not sustainable. 6. Facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner died on 16.04.2013 leaving behind his widow, three unmarried daughters and a son. It was projected that financial crunch of the family is subsisting and rather it has become worse. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. 7. It is further reflected from record that an Original Application No.1104 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2015 directing respondent no.2 to decide application of the petitioner within two months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. 7. It is further reflected from record that an Original Application No.1104 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2015 directing respondent no.2 to decide application of the petitioner within two months. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing the documents of service etc. but the same was not provided to him. The petitioner has again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.1362 of 2016 which was disposed of on 06.12.2016 directing the respondent concerned to pass a speaking and reasoned order. In view of the said direction, the order dated 13.02.2017 came to be passed by the respondent concerned demanding certain information again. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of such fact, no final order was passed and the claim of the petitioner was not considered, therefore, he was constrained to file Original Application No.330/00897 of 2019 with the following prayers: "(i) Issue an order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds without any further delay. (ii) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 9. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the learned Tribunal on the ground of delay is not sustainable in the eye of law as the petitioner has been pursuing his case since long right from beginning and no final order was passed by the respondents. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer by submitting that necessary information was never supplied by the petitioner and appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as matter of right. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. 12. On perusal of the record, we find that learned counsel for the petitioner constantly referring to the annexure no.7 (page 53) to the present petition has submitted that the petitioner had supplied necessary information as was demanded by the respondent-Authority. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. 12. On perusal of the record, we find that learned counsel for the petitioner constantly referring to the annexure no.7 (page 53) to the present petition has submitted that the petitioner had supplied necessary information as was demanded by the respondent-Authority. It reflects from annexure no.7 that the application/information is dated 30.04.2015, therefore, it was much prior to filing of the Original Application before the learned Tribunal. Specific information was sought by the respondent-Authority concerned which was never supplied by the petitioner subsequent to communication dated 13.02.2017. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph no.15 of the present petition to contend that the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 has been passed by respondent no.2 in arbitrary manner and the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is still pending. 14. However, on perusal of the entire petition and the impugned orders, we find that there is no averment that even a single line reply was ever given to the respondent-Authority by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2017. On the contrary, on perusal of the order dated 02.02.2016, we further find that discrepancy in the date of birth and huge variation in the year, as per date of birth is quite apparent. Therefore, clarification whereof was sought and certain clarification regarding property was also sought. This fact was noticed by the learned Tribunal. 15. We also notice the fact that after 2017, current original application was filed after two years whereas there is no indication that the petitioner has filed even a single line reply to the fact that information already supplied by him is correct information and there is nothing on record that he ever pursued the matter before the respondent - Authority. On the contrary the very prayer so made in the original application as noticed above, he sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him on the compassionate ground without any further delay. Admittedly, now 11 years have lapsed and the compassionate appointment as observed by the learned Tribunal by relying on several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be granted as a matter of right. Therefore, it would be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 15 of the impugned order which are reproduced hereinunder: 7. Admittedly, now 11 years have lapsed and the compassionate appointment as observed by the learned Tribunal by relying on several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be granted as a matter of right. Therefore, it would be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 15 of the impugned order which are reproduced hereinunder: 7. From perusal of record, it is evident that after the death of deceased employee, case of applicant has been considered by the CRC two times. By the orders dated 02.02.2016 and 13.02.2017, respondents have clearly informed the applicant that his case has not been considered due to the fact that:- (a) Variations in details of DOBs given by father of applicant to his family. (b) Concealing the details of house which was declared by the father of applicant at Village Manoj Pur Post Rajpur District Buxar (Bihar) as his permanent addressed in his service record. It is relevant to mention here that the case of applicant has now become more than 10 years old, so there is no justification for reconsideration in this matter. 8. As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation. 15. In the instant case, father of the applicant expired on 16.04.2013. Mother of applicant applied for compassionate appointment for applicant vide application dated 19.02.2014. When it was not considered by the respondents, applicant filed OA No. 1104 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2015 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant. In compliance of direction of the Tribunal, respondent No.2 passed reasoned and speaking order dated 02.02.2016. Aggrieved against the order dated 02.02.2016, applicant again filed OA No. 1362/2016 which was too disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of direction of the Tribunal, respondents passed detailed and reasoned order dated 13.02.2017, which was not impugned by the applicant in this OA. Aggrieved against the order dated 02.02.2016, applicant again filed OA No. 1362/2016 which was too disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of direction of the Tribunal, respondents passed detailed and reasoned order dated 13.02.2017, which was not impugned by the applicant in this OA. The case of applicant has been considered and replied by respondents vide orders dated 02.02.2016 and 13.02.2016 that his case is not fit for appointment on compassionate appointment due to the fact that doubtful documents have been submitted by the applicant and some facts defers with the facts disclosed in the service record of the father of the applicant. Substantial period of more than 10 years has been expired after the death of the deceased. Facts and evidence available on record are not sufficient to presume that penury condition of the applicant still subsists after lapse of more than 10 years. Thus it would not be just and proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment after a gap of more than 10 years. It is pertinent to mention that applicant has not disclosed the details of agricultural land owned by the applicant in District Buxar, State of Bihar which detected in the enquiry. Considering this fact that applicant is in possession of few hectare agricultural land, family has also received the terminal benefits. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) case, the grounds taken in the present O.A. lacks merit. Accordingly OA is dismissed. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of. 16. Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue in paragraph nos.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 in its order. Under such circumstances, it is very much clear that now 11 years have lapsed and in view of non-supply of relevant information/clarification by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents were at fault in not taking final decision for appointment of the petitioner on the compassionate ground. Now after lapse of 11 years, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right, as settled by Hon'ble Apex Court. 17. Now after lapse of 11 years, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right, as settled by Hon'ble Apex Court. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the matter of the petitioner was neither placed before the Board nor any final decision has been taken by the respondent-Authority. 18. So far as this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter should be placed before the Board for taking final decision is concerned, we find that this stage has not reached as the petitioner never supplied information as called for by the respondent-Authority. 19. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.