JUDGMENT : Battu Devanand, J. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2222 of 2023. 2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition for convenience. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The Writ Petition has been filed by the two brothers of respondent No.6. The Writ Petitioners are elders to respondent No.6 and their father died in harness on 11.06.1988. Thereafter, respondent No.6 got appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme in July, 1988. At the age of 57 years of respondent No.6, his two elder brothers filed the Writ Petition before this Court seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not taking any disciplinary action against respondent No.6 though he secured employment by fraud, misrepresentation and fabrication of documents as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, discriminatory and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to initiate appropriate disciplinary action accordingly to rules. 5. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioners that respondent No.6 has obtained family member certificate by fabrication. Recently, they came to know that respondent No.6 has fabricated certain documents. During the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge has posed a query to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and he replied that the writ petitioners and respondent No.6 have developed certain disputes pertaining to the properties, and a suit for partition has been filed after filing of the present Writ Petition. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge of this Court has considered that when the Scheme Of Compassionate Appointment is only available to the kith and kin of the deceased in harness, respondent No.6 is one of the children of the deceased employee, and appointed way back in 1988, filing of the writ petition in the year 2023 by the other two elder siblings against respondent No.6 is a gross abuse of process. Considering that filing of the writ petition itself is an abuse of process, learned Judge came to an opinion that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as being not only devoid of merits but also on the ground of gross abuse of process of law. Considering that filing of the writ petition itself is an abuse of process, learned Judge came to an opinion that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as being not only devoid of merits but also on the ground of gross abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition by an order dated 02.01.2024 with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-. Against the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed with delay of 184 days. 7. Having heard the submissions of both sides and on careful examination of the material available on record, it appears that to settle the financial and property issues with respondent No.6, the Writ Petitioners filed the Writ Petition. If really respondent No.6 had obtained employment on compassionate grounds after the death of the father of the writ petitioners and respondent No.6 by fraud, the writ petitioners have to object for the same at that time and they have to initiate certain proceedings against that appointment. Without doing so, keeping silent for around 30 years and filing the Writ Petition at this stage, amounts to abuse of process of law as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Normally as per the Compassionate Appointment Scheme to provide employment to a family member of the deceased employee all eligible members have to give consent to provide employment to one of the legal heir of the deceased employee. Certain documents have to be enclosed along with the application. After considering all the information and after conducting proper enquiry only, the competent authority will provide compassionate appointment to the eligible family member of the deceased employee. Being the siblings of respondent No.6, the Writ Petitioners around 30 years not contended that respondent No.6 obtained employment by fraud on compassionate appointment. It appears that the bonafides of the petitioners are doubtful and as such the finding of the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition that filing of the Writ Petition itself is abuse of process of law is in accordance with law and interference of this Court into the said order is not warranted. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Appeal is dismissed for devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.