JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. I.A. No.4170 of 2025 is allowed. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1546 of 2024 whereby the said writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant for compassionate appointment, has been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that father of the appellant, namely, Ganesh Bhagat was appointed as constable in Jharkhand Armed Police on 06.06.1975. During his service tenure, a criminal case, being Deoghar P.S. Case No. 115 of 1985 was lodged against him and two other persons for the offences under Sections 415 and 364 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE due to which he was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.06.1986 passed by the Commandant, BMP Deoghar, now JAP-5 (the respondent no. 6 herein) pursuant to the departmental proceeding initiated against him. 4. It is further submitted that father of the appellant and other accused persons were ultimately acquitted in the said criminal case vide order dated 18.07.1988 and subsequently the father of the appellant died on 30.12.1997. The mother of the appellant preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5791 of 2013 seeking family pension and other legal dues, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2015 in the light of rule 101(a) of the BIHAR PENSION RULES , 1950 as the father of the appellant had not challenged the order of his dismissal from service. 5. The mother of the appellant filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1119 of 2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.01.2016 granting permission to prefer Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter, the mother of the appellant filed L.P.A No. 76 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.06.2016 granting liberty her to challenge the order of dismissal of her deceased husband from service in accordance with law. 6. It is also submitted that the mother of the appellant filed fresh writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4210 of 2016 for quashing the order of the disciplinary authority dated 20.06.1986 and appellate order dated 21.02.1987 whereby her husband was dismissed from service which was allowed vide order dated 01.03.2021 quashing the said dismissal order and appellate order with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider her case on the ground of parity, as similarly situated person was reinstated in service with 50% back wages. 7. 3 to consider her case on the ground of parity, as similarly situated person was reinstated in service with 50% back wages. 7. Thereafter, the respondent-authority extended the entire family pension and other legal dues to the mother of the appellant. 8. The mother of the appellant subsequently filed representation before the respondent-authority seeking his compassionate appointment, as his father had died in harness on 30.12.1997. However, the said representation was rejected vide memo no. 152 dated 16.02.2024. Aggrieved with the said rejection, the appellant filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1546 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2024. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the father of the appellant had died in harness on 30.12.1997 after rendering more than 10 years of service. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4210 of 2016 filed by the mother of the appellant was allowed pursuant to which she was paid all the retiral benefits of her deceased husband. 10. It is also urged that the appellant has not committed any deliberate delay in raising claim for compassionate appointment as after quashing of the order of dismissal of his father in W.P.(S) No. 4210 of 2016, he immediately represented the respondent authority. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the very purpose of compassionate appointment has now been frustrated since the appellant has made huge delay in seeking compassionate appointment. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee. 12. It is further submitted that the appellant has raised the claim for the compassionate appointment after a lapse of more than 23 years and as such there is huge delay in raising the said claim . Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 14. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the father of the appellant was dismissed from service on account of lodging of criminal case against him being Deoghar P.S Case No. 115 of 1985, the appellant is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground after acquittal of his father from the criminal charges who had died in harness on 30.12.1997. 15. 15. It is an admitted fact that though the father of the appellant had died on 30.12.1997, the claim for compassionate appointment of the appellant was raised by his mother before the respondent authority by filing a representation dated 05.05.2021. Thus, the claim for compassionate appointment was raised after more than 23 years of the death of the father of the appellant. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions including in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Paras Nath, reported in (1998)2 SCC 412 ; Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2000)7 SCC 192 ; Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar & Ors., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 112; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar, reported in (2019)3 SCC 653 has explained the purpose of giving compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee. It has been observed that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased government servant and the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered after a considerable lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 17. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment, rather it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be done on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 18. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are not inclined to allow the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment on mere ground that the delay occasioned in making such claim was beyond his control. Moreover, after acquittal of the deceased employee and pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4210 of 2016, the family pension and other legal dues of the deceased employee has already been paid to the mother of the appellant. 19. Moreover, after acquittal of the deceased employee and pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4210 of 2016, the family pension and other legal dues of the deceased employee has already been paid to the mother of the appellant. 19. For the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1546 of 2024. 20. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.