ORDER : (Sameer Jain, J.) With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The instant petition is filed assailing the impugned termination order dated 23.07.1994, with the following prayers: "i) The termination order of the Vijay Singh dated 23.07.1994 may kindly be declared to be arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, void ab-initio, contrary to the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) The respondents may kindly further be directed to treat Shri. Vijay Singh to be in continuous service of the respondents without any break. iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground with effect from the date of submitting the application for appointment, with all consequential benefits to him. iv) They may kindly further be directed to give the family pension and make the payment of State Insurance, GPF and other emoluments, which are due in favour of the petitioners, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. v) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts of the present case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners." 3. The crux of the matter is that on 08.06.1976, Mr. Vijay Singh (Deceased), husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 was appointed as 'Chowkidar' in the respondent department and subsequently his service was made permanent vide order dated 11.06.1976. But due to an unfortunate incident, Mr. Singh suffered from certain mental disease, due to which he was unable to be present/mark attendance and render the assigned service, in between the period of 1989-1994. 4. As a result of the above stated willful absentism, the respondent department issued his termination letter on 23.07.1994 (Annexure-2), without granting any opportunity of being heard. Subsequently, Mr. Singh died on 06.08.1994. Ergo, the petitioners applied for grant of compassionate appointment qua petitioner no.-2 and the payment of State Insurance/ GPF/ pensionary benefits and reimbursement of the medical bills of the deceased-Mr. Singh. 5. In this regard, a notice for demand of justice was served upon the respondents, but a deaf ear was paid to the same. Aggrieved of which, the petitioners preferred SBCWP No. 4583/2007 titled as Smt. Dholki Devi & Anr. Singh. 5. In this regard, a notice for demand of justice was served upon the respondents, but a deaf ear was paid to the same. Aggrieved of which, the petitioners preferred SBCWP No. 4583/2007 titled as Smt. Dholki Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vide order dated 10.07.2007, the said petition was disposed of, with the directions to the respondents to consider the said notice for demand of justice dated 05.09.2006, within an upper period of six months. (Annexure-4). The said representation and notice for demand of justice, claiming compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits was rejected by the respondent-department. (Annexure-7). 6. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the said action of the respondent-department, whereby, dodging the provisions of Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, (hereafter referred as RSR) the termination letter issued qua the petitioner, was illegal and arbitrary, as it was de hors the settled position of law. It is a settled position of law, as per the provisions enshrined under Rule 86 of RSR, that the disciplinary authority may initiate the departmental proceedings against the State Government Employee, who had been absent from service for more than 30 days, under the CCA Rules. Moreover, only when the allegations of willful absentism are upheld by the disciplinary authority, then can the termination order be passed. However, in the instant matter no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner. 7. It was submitted that by the said impugned actions of the respondents, the petitioners have faced grave mental agony and financial loss. Even the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem were violated by the respondents. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the petition and submitted that the instant petition should be dismissed, as it is filed at a belated stage, i.e. the petitioner nos. 1 and 2's husband and father respectively, died in the Year 1994 and the instant petition was filed, at a belated stage in the Year 2008. Therefore, the same is hit by the bar of delay and laches. 9. Whilst addressing the factual averments, it was submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had concealed certain facts from the Court, as only after serving notices upon the petitioner's husband/father, the said termination order was passed. Therefore, the same is hit by the bar of delay and laches. 9. Whilst addressing the factual averments, it was submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had concealed certain facts from the Court, as only after serving notices upon the petitioner's husband/father, the said termination order was passed. It was submitted that the deceased will fully remained absent for a prolonged period i.e. 1989-1994, without any prior intimation and only substantially later, a certificate was furnished stating that the deceased was undergoing certain medical assistance and was admitted in a mental hospital from 08.01.1994 to 11.02.1994. This nowhere, justifies the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not consider the certificate, submitted in this regard. As the same, was only qua a part of period and does not vindicate the said absentism for the above stated period absolutely. 10. Moreover, a registered letter was served upon Mr. Singh, but he intentionally did not accept it. Subsequently, no additional documents were furnished by the petitioners along with the concerned representation and notice for demand of justice filed by them, before the respondents. Therefore, only on the basis of oral submissions, no benefits could have been released qua the petitioners and nor could the said termination order be called illegal. 11. While placing reliance upon Annexure-R/1 it was submitted that the petitioner's father/husband had died on 06.08.1994 whilst the termination order, in abeyance with the provisions of law was served upon Mr. Singh on 23.07.1994 i.e. prior to his death. Therefore, learned counsel argued that it was evident that at the time of death, the petitioner's husband was not a government employee. Hence, no claim of compassionate appointment survived qua the relatives of the deceased-Mr. Singh i.e. petitioner nos. 1 and 2. The relevant portion of Annexure-R/1, is reproduced below: "3(2). Singh on 23.07.1994 i.e. prior to his death. Therefore, learned counsel argued that it was evident that at the time of death, the petitioner's husband was not a government employee. Hence, no claim of compassionate appointment survived qua the relatives of the deceased-Mr. Singh i.e. petitioner nos. 1 and 2. The relevant portion of Annexure-R/1, is reproduced below: "3(2). tgk¡ rd fnukad 9-3-89 ls Jh fot; flag ds ekufld jksxh gksus dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa Jh fot; flag dks foHkkx dh vksj ls ckj ckj fy[kus ds mijkUr Hkh dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA ;gk¡ rd fd foHkkx }kjk fnukad 4-10-93 dks jftLVMZ ,0Mh0 i= }kjk esfMdy cksMZ dk fpfdRlk izek.k i= izLrqr djus gsrq fy[kk x;k] ysfdu mlds mijkUr Hkh mUgksaus dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k i= lgk;d vk;qDr dks izLrqr ugha fd;kA fnukad 24-3-94 dks Jh fot; flag us lgk;d vk;qDr ds le{k tks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk] mlesa muds }kjk ;g fy[kk x;k Fkk] fd ekufld jksx ds dkxtkr mlds ikl ugha gksdj mlds HkkbZ ds ikl gS rFkk ;g vuqjks/k fd;k fd mudh tkap djkdj esfMdy isU'ku djk ds muds iRuh dks ukSdjh ns nh tkosA pwafd fpfdRlk isU'ku ds lkFk iRuh dks ukSdjh fn;s tkus dh 'krZ izkFkZuk i= esa Mkyh xbZ Fkh ,slh fLFkfr esa fu;ekuqlkj bl izdkj dh izkFkZuk dks Lohdkj djuk lEHko ugha FkkA mlds mijkUr Hkh Jh fot; flag ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gq, rFkk u gh mUgksaus dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;kA vUrr% lgk;d vk;qDr nsoLFkku foHkkx dksVk us Jh fot; flag dks LoSfPNd :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k mUgsa i= Øekad 2918 fnukad 23-7-94 }kjk jktdh; lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA ;g i= jftLVMZ ,0Mh0 }kjk Jh fot; flag dks Hkstk x;k Fkk] ftls mUgksaus ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA tgk¡ rd lgk;d vk;qDr dk;kZy; dks fy[ks x;s i= fnukad 14-7-93 dk iz'u gS] i= dh ikyuk esa lgk;d vk;qDr us vius i= Øekad 3360 fnukad 4-10-93 jftLVMZ i= ls mUgs esfMdy cksMZ dk izek.k i= izLrqr djus gsrq dgkA mDr i= ds mijkUr Hkh Jh fot; flag us dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;kA bl leLr izdj.k esa lgk;d vk;qDr }kjk Jh fot; flag ds fo:) fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ nqHkkZouk gksuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA 5- foHkkx dh vksj ls tku cw> dj ,slh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ ftlls izkFkhZx.k dks fdlh ijs'kkuh dk lkekuk djuk iM+k gksA izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr esfMdy fcyksa ds Hkqxrku djus] jkT; chek ikWfylh dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djus] isU'ku ,oa mllas tqMs gq, ykHk nsus rFkk izkFkhZx.k esa ls fdlh ,d dks e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa jkT; lsok esa ysus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA tgk¡ rd jkT; chek ikWfylh dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku dk iz'u gS] tSlk fd Åij fcUnq la[;k 4 esa of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] bl jkf'k dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZx.k dks MªkV }kjk Hkstk tk pqdk gSA lgk;d vk;qDr nsoLFkku foHkkx dksVk us vius i= fnukad 10-4-008 ls voxr djk;k gS fd Jh fot; flag vFkok izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr djuk crk;s x;s esfMdy fcy muds dk;kZy; esa Hkqxrku gsrq yfEcr ugha gSA lquokbZ ds fnu Hkh izkFkhZx.k ls fcyksa ds ckjs esas tkudkjh dh xbZ Fkh] ysfdu mUgksaus fcyksa ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ iq[rk tkudkjh ugha gksuk crk;kA tgk¡ rd isU'ku ,oa isU'ku ls tqMs+ ykHk ,oa izkFkhZx.k esa ls fdlh ,d dks e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa jkT; lsok esa ysus dk iz'u gS] ;g jkgr izkFkhZx.k dks ugha nh tk ldrh D;ksafd Jh fot; flag dks mudh e`R;q fnukad 6-8-94 ls iwoZ gh fnukad 23-7-94 dks jktdh; lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tk pqdk FkkA Jh fot; flag e`R;q ds fnu jkT; lsok esa ugha FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k dks ikfjokfjd isU'ku o mlls tqMs+ ifjykHk rFkk e`rd vkfJr :i esa jkT; lsok esa fy;s tkus dh jkgr iznku djuk fu;ekuqlkj lEHko ugha gSA^^ 12. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides and perused through the record of the instant petition. 13. Upon an assiduous perusal of the record of the instant petition coupled with the arguments so advanced, the following noteworthy stipulations emerge, namely:- 13.1 That petitioner no. 1 and 2's husband and father respectively, was initially appointed on the post of 'Chowkidar' in the respondent-department and with the efflux of time, his service was made permanent. 13.2 That Mr. Singh did not mark his presence and render the service allotted qua him, due to certain medical conditions, as claimed by the petitioners. In this regard, the period of willful absentism is noted to subsist between 08.01.1994 to 11.02.1994. 13.3 That in justification of the said time period of willful absentism, no valid/sound documents have been placed on record. 13.4 That due intimation via a registered post was sent qua the petitioner's husband, with regards to his willful absentism, by the respondents, but prima facie with malafide intentions, the petitioner refused to accept and/or acknowledge the same. 13.5 That regardless of the aforesaid, compassionate appointment at such a belated stage, cannot be granted to the deceased-employee's family i.e. the petitioners, as the entire purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to help the grieving family to overcome the tide of financial uncertainty and immediate loss caused by the demise. However, as on date, approximately 30 years have lapsed since the demise of the said employee. Moreover, even when the said petition was filed in the Year 2008, approximately 14 years had lapsed since the demise of Mr. Singh. 13.6 That in compliance of the order dated 10.07.2007, passed in Smt. Dholki Devi (Supra) the respondent-department had passed a detailed speaking order dated 11.04.2008. The said order is sans any irregularities and is passed only after considering the material facts and merits of the case. 14. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to take note of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Hakim Singh reported in AIR 1997 SC 3887 , wherein it was categorically held that the object of appointment of the dependent of the deceased employee, who dies in harness is to relieve unexpected hardships and distress caused to the family, by the sudden demise of the said earning member of the family. v. Hakim Singh reported in AIR 1997 SC 3887 , wherein it was categorically held that the object of appointment of the dependent of the deceased employee, who dies in harness is to relieve unexpected hardships and distress caused to the family, by the sudden demise of the said earning member of the family. Claim of the dependent preferred long after the death of the deceased would amount to another mode of recruitment of such dependent, which shall be against the policy of Compassionate Appointment. 15. Culminating the aforementioned observations, this Court is of the following opinion: 15.1 That the impugned termination order is passed sans discrimination and/or malice, in adherence of the provisions of law. Moreover, upon a perusal of the record, it is evident that the termination order was only passed, after sending notices via registered posts upon Mr. Singh, which were declined by Mr. Singh and the petitioners themselves. Hence, no protection can be granted to the person, who himself, chooses the injury. 15.2 That Mr. Singh was firstly terminated from his service and only died, subsequently. In this regard, it is noted that Mr. Singh died on 06.08.1994, whereas the termination order was passed on 23.07.1994. Hence, at no instance the claim qua the compassionate appointment can be adjudicated on merits. Moreover, compassionate appointment is not a vested right, especially when the same is claimed after a belated stage. 15.3 That the Commissioner, Devasthan Department has duly adjudicated the matter on merits, by way of a speaking order dated 11.04.2008. Hence, the same requires no further consideration, on the present date. 16. In view of the foregoing observations, this Court endorses the orders dated 23.07.1994 and 11.04.2008, to the effect that the petitioners are ineligible for compassionate appointment, especially when the request qua the same is made at a belated stage qua non-existent service of the terminated employee. 17. Therefore, since no infirmity is found in the impugned order, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and hence, is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.